Comments

A new development and I feel the need (as usual) to make a comment or two.

Our disagreements are over interpretation. In my opinion, some folks may wish to find something that doesn't exist, because they assume or because "it's always been done that way".

I again make the statement that I am not an attorney but I know enough about the law to understand that words speak for themselves and while we may disagree on the meaning or interpretation, we don't get to make the final decision.

Take FMLA for example. FMLA states that, under certain conditions and with exceptions, employees must be given 12 weeks, per 12 month period, of unpaid leave. That is the Minimum requirement placed on the employer. Does FMLA prohibit a more generous policy or endow an employer with some magical power to fire an employee because the minimum conditions have been met?

I say ABSOLUTLY NOT! It is not in the interest of the govenment, or particularily a union representing employees, to limit what benefits an employer is willing to grant or to fire someone and so, that decision is left to the employer. The caveat is that the rule of law must still apply and therein lies our major disagreement.

The Supreme Court is the final decision maker in the United States and along the way, we have a system where a jury, tried and true, makes their own decision based on a story told by two or more people. The test is always supposed to be what's reasonable and what isn't. I am more than willing to see how a reasonable jury will feel. Seems pretty simple to me.

I'll close the post with a final question. Does anyone have some right to enter into a contract, or send a letter with a promise, and later claim "Ooops" but expect no consequence? "No Harm, No Foul" may be fine in basketball but isn't acceptable when you're dealing with someone's life and livelihood.