Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
17i is as vague as it has ever been, perhaps even more so with the most recent addition, not to mention the long term inverse verbage "may be suspended in lieu of discharge"(wording is back words, think about it)17-i made gains in 2013, and has been improved even further now.
The problem with 17-i was the company abused the original intent, for years.
....when has that happened and why doesn't the Union insist on it?
Absolutely, I'll take a suspension in lieu of discharge, every time and twice on Sunday.
You guys can't even get that right, or admit it's backwards and correct it in consecutive contracts.
"Serious" to "Cardinal", as well as now expanded arbitray terms like "so egregious", leaves us no closer to being protected from the Company abusing whatever intent there may be in that language (that has to be the worst language in any supplement in the country).
It didn't help when the Panel continually rolled over on the employee who had the stones to go forward, only to be returned to work, "discharge reduced to suspension, time served" either.It didn't help matters when discharged members accepted their job back
in exchange for a time served suspension.... adding wind to the company sails.
As convenient as it may be for you, in the seat you represent to have, to blame the Company and the members for everything, is simply a load of crap.
Are you really dillusional enough to look in the mirror and say all that stuff, then walk away convinced???
You're a funny guy.
SMH
~Bbbl~™
Last edited: