What's new

FedEx Freight | No more milage pay for CA?

johndeere4020 said:
I know this difference but for our argument here they are a difference without a distinction. The difference is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

No its a big difference when people are using murder case with many variables as an example in turn trying to compare it to a cut and dry wrongful termination case. His argument and reds about 3 sides doesn't hold water in this case. There are 2 sides it will be teamsters vs fed ex freight for ulp wrongful termination. It's not fed ex freight vs teamsters vs judge. There is no 3rd side the judge will intemperate the case and give his decision he doesn't have a side. 1 winner 1 loser pretty simple for some I guess.
 
Crazy Trucker said:
No its a big difference when people are using murder case with many variables as an example in turn trying to compare it to a cut and dry wrongful termination case. His argument and reds about 3 sides doesn't hold water in this case. There are 2 sides it will be teamsters vs fed ex freight for ulp wrongful termination. It's not fed ex freight vs teamsters vs judge. There is no 3rd side the judge will intemperate the case and give his decision he doesn't have a side. 1 winner 1 loser pretty simple for some I guess.
Click to expand...

First we've tried to explain this to you there is probably a little truth to both sides and a judge will decide. That's two outcomes but doesn't mean there's two sides. Also the Teamsters have nothing to do with this DD isn't a Tramster.
 
johndeere4020 said:
First we've tried to explain this to you there is probably a little truth to both sides and a judge will decide. That's two outcomes but doesn't mean there's two sides. Also the Teamsters have nothing to do with this DD isn't a Tramster.
Click to expand...

Nope he either broke a rule and got fired justly or he didn't how can there be truth on both sides? Can't be a hung jury.
 
Last edited:
Crazy Trucker said:
Nope he either broke a rule and got fired justly or he didn't how can there be truth on both sides? Can't be a hung jury. Who do you think filed the ulp for him? When the terminal voted it in they have protection from union for these issues.
Click to expand...

Once again you are describing two outcomes not sides that the story. It is in fact possible if not probable that both sides imbelished the story. That's how we get three sides, his, theirs and the truth. The judge deciding one of two possible outcomes doesn't mean there's not three sides. This is really an elementary concept. We'll see how much help the union is despite what you say he isn't a Teamster.
 
johndeere4020 said:
Once again you are describing two outcomes not sides that the story. It is in fact possible if not probable that both sides imbelished the story. That's how we get three sides, his, theirs and the truth. The judge deciding one of two possible outcomes doesn't mean there's not three sides. This is really an elementary concept. We'll see how much help the union is despite what you say he isn't a Teamster.
Click to expand...

I guess he got fired for half breaking a rule. When fed ex decided to fire him it had to be run by legal you can't make up a story to tell legal. He either broke the rule or he broke an unforseen rule and didn't know or broke a set in stone rule.
 
johndeere4020 said:
Once again you are describing two outcomes not sides that the story. It is in fact possible if not probable that both sides imbelished the story. That's how we get three sides, his, theirs and the truth. The judge deciding one of two possible outcomes doesn't mean there's not three sides. This is really an elementary concept. We'll see how much help the union is despite what you say he isn't a Teamster.
Click to expand...
Well said. Plain English and everything. He wants to argue so bad he can't see the forest from the trees. I've explained twice now that my argument is not OJ murder trail vs DD civil trial but these facts go unnoticed by him. He doesn't want to discuss this, he just waits for his turn to talk. He's not capable of seeing the point your trying to make, he just takes what you say out of context to prove his point. I don't know how I can explain it any more simply.. The law is never cut and dry. Lawyers make big money for a reason, this is lost on him as well.
 
Crazy Trucker said:
I guess he got fired for half breaking a rule. When fed ex decided to fire him it had to be run by legal you can't make up a story to tell legal. He either broke the rule or he broke an unforseen rule and didn't know or broke a set in stone rule.
Click to expand...
Who's making it complicated now. My guess is that FedEx has a nice paper trail on him in his file. Everything he did wrong or has been written up for is in that thing. And I thought you new the facts to this case. You said it was "cut and dry". Sounds to me like your getting yourself caught in your own fabrication of what the truth is. So do you or don't you know the "facts" here? Because if you don't, you should really stop trying to help the man. It's already gonna be a long hard fight and even if he wins there is nothing in the law that says the judge has to award him compensation. Or the compensation won't cover the cost of his attorney and he wins but loses anyway. Bet that just blows your mind.
 
Last edited:
Crazy Trucker said:
Nope he either broke a rule and got fired justly or he didn't how can there be truth on both sides? Can't be a hung jury.
Click to expand...

Crazy Trucker said:
I guess he got fired for half breaking a rule. When fed ex decided to fire him it had to be run by legal you can't make up a story to tell legal. He either broke the rule or he broke an unforseen rule and didn't know or broke a set in stone rule.
Click to expand...
You just gave us three different scenarios as to what could have happened. Not so cut and dry is it? Thank you for proving our point. Although I'm sure you'll find a way to spin your remarks.
 
Last edited:
Ump said:
You just gave us three different scenarios as to what could have happened. Not so cut and dry is it? Thank you for proving our point. Although I'm sure you'll find a way to spin your remarks.
Click to expand...

No it boils down to whether he broke a rule or not. No spin just the truth.
 
Ump said:
Well said. Plain English and everything. He wants to argue so bad he can't see the forest from the trees. I've explained twice now that my argument is not OJ murder trail vs DD civil trial but these facts go unnoticed by him. He doesn't want to discuss this, he just waits for his turn to talk. He's not capable of seeing the point your trying to make, he just takes what you say out of context to prove his point. I don't know how I can explain it any more simply.. The law is never cut and dry. Lawyers make big money for a reason, this is lost on him as well.
Click to expand...

Ignore feature works great. Just poking holes in people's arguments that don't make sense.
 
Crazy Trucker said:
No it boils down to whether he broke a rule or not. No spin just the truth.
Click to expand...
It doesn't come down to if he broke a rule or not. It comes down to did FedEx have a justifiable reason to terminate his employment. Guys break rules everyday and don't get fired. If you can't understand what the conflict is please stop arguing the point.
 
Ump said:
Who's making it complicated now. My guess is that FedEx has a nice paper trail on him in his file. Everything he did wrong or has been written up for is in that thing. And I thought you new the facts to this case. You said it was "cut and dry". Sounds to me like your getting yourself caught in your own fabrication of what the truth is. So do you or don't you know the "facts" here? Because if you don't, you should really stop trying to help the man. It's already gonna be a long hard fight and even if he wins there is nothing in the law that says the judge has to award him compensation. Or the compensation won't cover the cost of his attorney and he wins but loses anyway. Bet that just blows your mind.
Click to expand...

Your bringing his past up and claiming they could use past write ups against him now unless it's the same as what he got fired for those do not matter. I'm playing with you drama Queens who just like to argue it is cut and dry. Doubt anything said on a public forum by random truck drivers will help or hurt his case.
 
Ump said:
It doesn't come down to if he broke a rule or not. It comes down to did FedEx have a justifiable reason to terminate his employment. Guys break rules everyday and don't get fired. If you can't understand what the conflict is please stop arguing the point.
Click to expand...

Yes it does come down to whether he broke a rule or not and whether they took the proper punishment course as they have done with other drivers. Your right though they had to be justified to fire on first offense if that is the case.
 
Crazy Trucker said:
Your bringing his past up and claiming they could use past write ups against him now unless it's the same as what he got fired for those do not matter.
Click to expand...
Wow!!! You really don't think they won't use everything he's done to show justifiable cause. You've said it yourself, the legal team had to sign off on his termination. You really believe they took this one circumstance and decided to okay a termination. Again the word naive comes to mind.
 
Crazy Trucker said:
Yes it does come down to whether he broke a rule or not and whether they took the proper punishment course as they have done with other drivers. Your right though they had to be justified to fire on first offense if that is the case.
Click to expand...
Do you know it was a first offence? I don't know the guy so I wouldn't make any speculation as to his situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top