Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bubblehead" data-source="post: 1399308" data-attributes="member: 14176">Beat up???I don&#039;t feel that way at all.If anything, I feel more and more validated as we debate.I don&#039;t feel I&#039;m taking anything out of context, and with this in mind, I challenge you to tell us the meaning and relevance of the first sentence of Art 15 sec 1?In what context is it valid, or is it extraneous?Within your theory of &quot;the intent of the language&quot;, it seems to have no place.A regular seniority employee shall not be required to work on the following eight (8) named holidaysLet me endeavor to equate this to an analogy.If I secure a loan at 3.5% interest, and after all the papers are signed and I make several payments, the bank realizes they should have charged me 5.3% instead, should they be let out of the original agreement because they didn&#039;t write it properly?Perhaps I will file a grievance.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bubblehead, post: 1399308, member: 14176"] Beat up??? I don't feel that way at all. If anything, I feel more and more validated as we debate. I don't feel I'm taking anything out of context, and with this in mind, I challenge you to tell us the meaning and relevance of the first sentence of Art 15 sec 1? In what context is it valid, or is it extraneous? Within your theory of "the intent of the language", it seems to have no place. [B][I]A regular seniority employee shall not be required to work on the following eight (8) named holidays[/I][/B] Let me endeavor to equate this to an analogy. If I secure a loan at 3.5% interest, and after all the papers are signed and I make several payments, the bank realizes they should have charged me 5.3% instead, should they be let out of the original agreement because they didn't write it properly? Perhaps I will file a grievance. [/QUOTE]

Verification