|
|
Post by chipset35 on Nov 23, 2019 13:22:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ptc on Nov 23, 2019 14:25:52 GMT
Just one more really dumb ruling. I am surprised that they didn't order all all expense paid vacation to maker the offender feel better.  |
|
|
|
Post by Joe Saggese on Nov 23, 2019 15:08:41 GMT
I dont even know what to say..........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2019 16:12:40 GMT
Brian, up here not only would he have gotten his job back, he would receive lost wages and probably a promotion!!
Gary.
|
|
|
|
Post by harborbelt70 on Nov 23, 2019 16:23:08 GMT
As was once all too accurately said, in Dickens' Oliver Twist, "The Law is an A**"  |
|
|
|
Post by JKP on Nov 23, 2019 19:21:11 GMT
UP should appeal this.
|
|
|
|
Post by 4dogsinjersey on Nov 24, 2019 3:02:41 GMT
Not a new issue on the railroad. Bizarre and ugly to say the least, but employees have had their jobs reinstated after being terminated for doing worse things.
In the old days, where did steam engine crews go to the bathroom? In the tender, on the coal pile.
Maybe the toilet on the locomotive this guy had, was not working or unsanitary and he just got fed up with a possible chronic situation. Who knows. It is kind of odd that a railroad would go to court to get a labor review board’s decision reversed.
Tom
|
|
|
|
Post by fabforrest on Nov 24, 2019 12:21:50 GMT
What does this have to do with the Challenger?
|
|
|
|
Post by chipset35 on Nov 24, 2019 14:20:17 GMT
What does this have to do with the Challenger? Interesting point...although they show a photo of the Challenger, they do not mention it "per se" in the article. Kind of makes this seem a "dud" article now, as doing what they claim to a modern diesel engine is one thing, but the Challenger is a whole different thing. |
|
|
|
Post by 4dogsinjersey on Nov 24, 2019 14:47:22 GMT
Yeah, I didn’t get any sense of the guy “pooping” on the Challenger, at any point in the article. It seems he made doo-doo on the coupler between his engine and first car...
Tom
|
|
