My card arrived years before that. In fact the division BD king told me that his was shipped to him the same way. He was pretty testy about it too.2009
OK, You win!
That's not mine. Someone paid the price for that shot I'm sure.OK, You win!
Yours is bigger!
LOL
OK
Get inthegame Dude ... the 2000 decision was for 1999 ... geez!
Don't try and act smart or savvy ... it just doesn't work for you.
Backpaying never bothered me. Good for them.
Lot's of people getting the equivalent with 9.5 language.
That doesn't bother me either.
That was way too easy.
That's what I understand. Those who worked the least hours received the largest checks, or something like that.The company's claim (at the time) was business suffered because of the strike....
And the language allowed them not to create the 22.3 jobs.
It was deadlocked at the National Panel, and went in to arbitration.
The first 22.3 people were awarded back pay, and a back-dated seniority date.
(if I am remembering everything correctly)
-Bug-
The first 22.3 people were awarded back pay, and a back-dated seniority date.
(if I am remembering everything correctly)
Your memory is fine.
On Feb 11, 2000, Arbitrator George Nicolau ruled UPS in violation of Art 22.3 for failing to create 2000 full time jobs from Aug 1, '97 - July 31, '98. The award ("First Year Agreement")included a make whole remedy with back pay from awarded bid to Aug 1, '98, with back dated seniority.
On Mar 10, 2000 the same arbitrator issued the "Second Year Agreement" award (ordering an additional 2000 ft jobs created) with make whole remedy commencing on Aug 1 '99 to awarded bid date.
Case # AAA 13 300 1908 98
The company's claim (at the time) was business suffered because of the strike....
And the language allowed them not to create the 22.3 jobs.
-Bug-
He reminds me of a labor guy...confrontational, petty, immature. ;DNo I watched the OP's video years ago. Norman has a redneck side. Less than professional I would say.
Ok that's just nasty!!OK, You win!
Yours is bigger!
Didn't mean the statements....but thAt damn picture...lolOk that's just nasty!!
I saw that and I conceded.Didn't mean the statements....but thAt damn picture...lol
No doubting that!!I saw that and I conceded.
Serious booty there.
Here is an online version, for anyone wanting to read the entire case.
Teamsters Online: Parcel & Small Package Division: Arbitrators Ruling
-Bug-
You OK Bug? You sick?
That's not like you. I hope you get better.
I mean, you are actually "giving" something away without charging for it.