deadbeat00

A simple math can be confusing if the lawyers get involve by writing it.

Recommended Posts

When argument falls:

A PUBLIC HYSTERIA OF LOSERS

Yet this reply has all the hysteria of a loser.....

:mrgreen:

Edited by GH0104

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet this reply has all the hysteria of a loser.....

:mrgreen:

Can you be more original and stop repeating my lines?

You sound like preschooler!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you be more original and stop repeating my lines?

You sound like preschooler!

Getting more hysterical....

:ROFLMAO2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Getting more hysterical....

:ROFLMAO2:

And that is all you can do?...... Hmmm.

How about answering the following GH0104?

The [right to refuse] If [N condition] OR [C condition], which ever is greater.

Edited by deadbeat00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And that is all you can do?...... Hmmm.

How about answering the following GH0104?

The [right to refuse] If [N condition] OR [C condition], which ever is greater.

Because I don't argue with trolls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So why are you arguing?

At least you admit you're a troll - and what was I arguing? I only made statements.

I figure that, since you've obviously come here to amuse yourself by acting like a troll, posting nonesensical threads like this one, I might as well glean a bit of amusement myself.

It's all right, though. I'm done, too. You may sit here in your pathetic thread, all by your lonesome! :mrgreen:

(following ChuckyGee out the door)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At least you admit you're a troll - and what was I arguing? I only made statements.

I figure that, since you've obviously come here to amuse yourself by acting like a troll, posting nonesensical threads like this one, I might as well glean a bit of amusement myself.

It's all right, though. I'm done, too. You may sit here in your pathetic thread, all by your lonesome! :mrgreen:

(following ChuckyGee out the door)

Is this your ID GH0104?..... from what institution?

Sometimes challenged people have an extraordinary IQ

The [right to refuse] If [N condition] OR [C condition], which ever is greater.

Lets see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original text:

An employee covered by this Agreement shall have [the right to refuse a transfer to another location] if [the distance to travel one way between his place of residence and new location is more than twenty-five (25) miles] or [the distance between his place of residence and his current store], which ever is greater.

New=10 miles;

Current=3 miles;

Reduced text but same as the original:

The [right to refuse] If [N condition] OR [C condition], which ever is greater.

Substituting for N and C:

The [right to refuse] If [10 > 25] OR [C = 3], which ever is greater.

Is there a right to refuse or not?..... If not why.

If you do not know stay away.

Please use the above model to explain.

Edited by deadbeat00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The original text:

An employee covered by this Agreement shall have [the right to refuse a transfer to another location] if [the distance to travel one way between his place of residence and new location is more than twenty-five (25) miles] or [the distance between his place of residence and his current store], which ever is greater.

New=10 miles;

Current=3 miles;

Reduced text but same as the original:

The [right to refuse] If [N condition] OR [C condition], which ever is greater.

Substituting for N and C:

The [right to refuse] If [10 > 25] OR [C = 3], which ever is greater.

Is there a right to refuse or not?..... If not why.

If you do not know stay away.

Please use the above model to explain.

I know I'm going to kick myself for not just letting this go. There is none so blind as those who are determined not to see.

But if you set the equation up wrong, you get the wrong answer. Here is the proper way to arrange the sentence:

An employee covered by this Agreement shall have [the right to refuse a transfer to another location] if [the distance to travel one way between his place of residence and new location] is more than {[twenty-five (25) miles] or [the distance between his place of residence and his current store]}, which ever is greater.

New=10 miles;

Current=3 miles;

Reduced text but same as the original:

The [right to refuse] If [N condition] > {[25] OR [C condition]}, which ever is greater.

Substituting for N and C:

The [right to refuse] If [N=10] > {[25] OR [C = 3]}, which ever is greater.

The [right to refuse] If [10] > { 25 }

Since 10 is not greater than 25, [right to refuse] = false

Regards,

DH

Edited by debtorshusband

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know I'm going to kick myself for not just letting this go. There is none so blind as those who are determined not to see.

But if you set the equation up wrong, you get the wrong answer. Here is the proper way to arrange the sentence:

An employee covered by this Agreement shall have [the right to refuse a transfer to another location] if [the distance to travel one way between his place of residence and new location] is more than {[twenty-five (25) miles] or [the distance between his place of residence and his current store]}, which ever is greater.

New=10 miles;

Current=3 miles;

Reduced text but same as the original:

The [right to refuse] If [N condition] > {[25] OR [C condition]}, which ever is greater.

Substituting for N and C:

The [right to refuse] If [N=10] > {[25] OR [C = 3]}, which ever is greater.

The [right to refuse] If [10] > { 25 }

Since 10 is not greater than 25, [right to refuse] = false

Regards,

DH

Remember that I am arguing that the language is ambiguous not that a spirit of the paragraph is different from your good interpretation.

My interpretation is as good as yours.

In the end, the legality of the contract is based on how the party understand its meaning, hidden and implied terms when they are executing it - subject to a litigation.

"If it doesn't fit you must acquit"

Case closed!:rolleyes:

Edited by deadbeat00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Therefore xdeadhorsex or xhitwallx whichever is greater.
LOL. My thoughts exactly. The OP can argue anything, but its like the infamous "It depends on what the meaning of the words 'IS' is" from the late 90s. Mostly nonsensical. At some point, you have to a meaning to the language in light of intent, context, and construction. Seems pretty cut and dry here.

So the follow up question becomes SO WHAT? Well, if the employer transfers the employee to a store greater than 25 miles AND if the employee refuses the transfer AND if the employee decides to fight the termination based on some right they feel they have in the employee manual to override the general at-will employment law AND if the employee can find an employment law attorney who feels this case is worth the effort, the question is will this action survive to not only get in front of a jury but convince the jury to award damages based on this right to refuse a transfer.

The chances of this happening are about the same as hitting powerball, so this thread is nothing more than academic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL. My thoughts exactly. The OP can argue anything, but its like the infamous "It depends on what the meaning of the words 'IS' is" from the late 90s. Mostly nonsensical. At some point, you have to a meaning to the language in light of intent, context, and construction. Seems pretty cut and dry here.

So the follow up question becomes SO WHAT? Well, if the employer transfers the employee to a store greater than 25 miles AND if the employee refuses the transfer AND if the employee decides to fight the termination based on some right they feel they have in the employee manual to override the general at-will employment law AND if the employee can find an employment law attorney who feels this case is worth the effort, the question is will this action survive to not only get in front of a jury but convince the jury to award damages based on this right to refuse a transfer.

The chances of this happening are about the same as hitting powerball, so this thread is nothing more than academic.

Although, I am finish with this issue, you have raced some questions which must be answered. This particular major food store chain is using the transfer as a punishment of the union employees if they demand other contractual obligation from the employer.

The contract was written long time ago when a gallon of gas was about $0.5 today about $3 and entire cost of traveling was about 1/5 of what it is today.

The job is par-time like 39 hours instead of 40 so they do not have to pay more and 10 per hour after 3 years of seniority which is non-survivable pay in Southern California. So bay adding additional car expense to already reduced hours to 25 per week makes the job non affordable.

So if you dealing with an a-holes you need extra leverage. Don't be surprised if I talk to my local senator and congressman giving them an idea to impose carbon footprint tax on the transfer as a form of punishment against a-holes.

However, I have learn how cynical and unintelligent some members are at this forum.

Finally "debtorshusband" answered my strategy to my liking by providing proper mathematical expression which is sufficient for me and could be used in possible legal answer against a-holes.

So I would not be so LOL like if I would be you.

There is old European saying: "One who LOL last LOL best.":roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a case which is based on the following contractual statement:

Travel Distance: An employee covered by this Agreement shall have the right to refuse a transfer to another location if the distance to travel one way between his place of residence and new location is more than twenty-five (25) miles or the distance between his place of residence and his current store, which ever is greater.

The employee's current location is 3 miles.

The employee's new location is 10 miles

Q. Does employee have the right to refuse?:confused:

This is your original post. You asked a straight forward question. Multiple persons on the board responded at your request.

I can empathize with your situation. Many of us are on this board, because we are having financial problems. That's why we are being sued by CC companies.

But after receiving answers, you continued to insist that your interpretation was the only one with any validation. If this is the only leg your case is standing on, you are in trouble. If the majority of the persons responding on this board who are consumer friendly thinks that the logic is flawed, how do you expect to get a judge, a magistrate, or a jury to agree that it is not. And if you manage to get it at trial level, how do you expect it to survive an appeal.

If the union is representing the workers, than it should have it's legal team looking at the issue of discrimination, not whether 7 miles will mean a right of refusal. It should build a case showing that union members are being unfairly targeted and harassed. That is a much stronger case than a right of refusal based upon vague contractual language.

My wife's job filed bankruptcy and the news was reporting it before the employees were informed. We were devastated financially. No driving extra miles, no union grievances, no lawsuit to make them pay what was owed was available.

So save the holier than thou act!

I recommend this tread be locked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is your original post. You asked a straight forward question. Multiple persons on the board responded at your request.

I can empathize with your situation. Many of us are on this board, because we are having financial problems. That's why we are being sued by CC companies.

But after receiving answers, you continued to insist that your interpretation was the only one with any validation. If this is the only leg your case is standing on, you are in trouble. If the majority of the persons responding on this board who are consumer friendly thinks that the logic is flawed, how do you expect to get a judge, a magistrate, or a jury to agree that it is not. And if you manage to get it at trial level, how do you expect it to survive an appeal.

If the union is representing the workers, than it should have it's legal team looking at the issue of discrimination, not whether 7 miles will mean a right of refusal. It should build a case showing that union members are being unfairly targeted and harassed. That is a much stronger case than a right of refusal based upon vague contractual language.

My wife's job filed bankruptcy and the news was reporting it before the employees were informed. We were devastated financially. No driving extra miles, no union grievances, no lawsuit to make them pay what was owed was available.

So save the holier than thou act!

I recommend this tread be locked.

I said I am finish and now you are xdeadhorsex

You do not know what was my motivations to keep asking the questions as I was.

The title was "A simple math can be confusing if the lawyers get involve by writing it" so think Mr. smart!

Kudos to "debtorshusband" for his patience.

Edited by deadbeat00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could have the best motives in the world, but it doesn't change the fact that the wording is clear that if an employee already commuttes less than 25 miles, the store can tranfer him/her to another location up to 25 miles and the employee does not have the right to refuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You could have the best motives in the world, but it doesn't change the fact that the wording is clear that if an employee already commuttes less than 25 miles, the store can tranfer him/her to another location up to 25 miles and the employee does not have the right to refuse.

Sure Mr. Smart18.... until proven otherwise.:rolleyes:

Edited by deadbeat00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.