Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
Redman wrote:No not really Gladiator.
An individual or a company has a sovereign right to determine who is allowed on their premises.
So a Co can call any service provider and say we dont want X,y or Z on our premises-no reason has to be given.
So Paria or any other Co....can simply refuse entry to any employee of any Contractor.
Any employment contract worth the paper its on would include a Code of Conduct section or clause-which probably would be tripped by the Murder ACCUSATION.
There would be a warning,2nd warning and then dismissal.
This is 2022 making these types of accusations have ramifications.
Gladiator wrote:Under Section 4(i) of the Constitution, all citizens have the right to 'freedom of thought and expression'.
We have freedom of speech... Without that we won't have a free press and won't be considered a democracy.
The law of the land applies to both public and private entities.
Obviously... But let those who are offended by ones expression take it to a court of law for due process.Redman wrote:Gladiator wrote:Under Section 4(i) of the Constitution, all citizens have the right to 'freedom of thought and expression'.
We have freedom of speech... Without that we won't have a free press and won't be considered a democracy.
The law of the land applies to both public and private entities.
Freedom of speech is enshrined in the constitution.
However the constitution protects ones right to expression, it is not a shield against the consequences of that expression.
You know that.
Haha...you wish. Your level of thinking is reserved for yourself and maybe we'll...max.Redman wrote:We agree however you have drifted the context of the conversation.
This is about a company's right to protect it's reputation as it seems necessary.
Every post I made was specific in that there was an accusation of Murder made on social media, by an employee or a contractor.
The company has its own rights.
I stated that there will be contractual obligations on bringing parties into disrepute, and that there is due process to be followed.
All of which you've echoed in different terms.
Nice to see that I've brought you down to my low level of thinking.
Gladiator wrote:Obviously... But let those who are offended by ones expression take it to a court of law for due process.Redman wrote:Gladiator wrote:Under Section 4(i) of the Constitution, all citizens have the right to 'freedom of thought and expression'.
We have freedom of speech... Without that we won't have a free press and won't be considered a democracy.
The law of the land applies to both public and private entities.
Freedom of speech is enshrined in the constitution.
However the constitution protects ones right to expression, it is not a shield against the consequences of that expression.
You know that.
If not, we would be chopping, shooting and beating everybody that says something we don't like.
Gladiator wrote:Haha...you wish. Your level of thinking is reserved for yourself and maybe we'll...max.Redman wrote:We agree however you have drifted the context of the conversation.
This is about a company's right to protect it's reputation as it seems necessary.
Every post I made was specific in that there was an accusation of Murder made on social media, by an employee or a contractor.
The company has its own rights.
I stated that there will be contractual obligations on bringing parties into disrepute, and that there is due process to be followed.
All of which you've echoed in different terms.
Nice to see that I've brought you down to my low level of thinking.
The initial report was that Paria was firing contractors and employees that accused them of murder. The insinuation was that this was being done without due process to which you agreed that it was acceptable due to the company protecting its reputation.
My arguement was that any terminations of contracts of any kind has to be done via due process. Given that this incident happened about a month ago, it is unlikely that if anyone was fired, that it was done legally.
When they sue, its taxpayers money spending and nobody would be held accountable. So I guess in sheit hole Trinidad, anything goes...
Redman wrote:Gladiator wrote:Haha...you wish. Your level of thinking is reserved for yourself and maybe we'll...max.Redman wrote:We agree however you have drifted the context of the conversation.
This is about a company's right to protect it's reputation as it seems necessary.
Every post I made was specific in that there was an accusation of Murder made on social media, by an employee or a contractor.
The company has its own rights.
I stated that there will be contractual obligations on bringing parties into disrepute, and that there is due process to be followed.
All of which you've echoed in different terms.
Nice to see that I've brought you down to my low level of thinking.
The initial report was that Paria was firing contractors and employees that accused them of murder. The insinuation was that this was being done without due process to which you agreed that it was acceptable due to the company protecting its reputation.
My arguement was that any terminations of contracts of any kind has to be done via due process. Given that this incident happened about a month ago, it is unlikely that if anyone was fired, that it was done legally.
When they sue, its taxpayers money spending and nobody would be held accountable. So I guess in sheit hole Trinidad, anything goes...
Your high horse argument is that its low level thinking to believe that employees and Contractors and Employers have a duty of mutual respect, obligations to avoid bringing contraparties into disrepute.
However local Industrial court and business practice have supported the fact there are obligations to avoid disrepute in general.
The public accusation of Murder is worthy of sanction.
As youve belatedly stated- there is a framework to be followed-which was obvious.
Well I thought so.
Gladiator wrote:Redman wrote:Gladiator wrote:Haha...you wish. Your level of thinking is reserved for yourself and maybe we'll...max.Redman wrote:We agree however you have drifted the context of the conversation.
This is about a company's right to protect it's reputation as it seems necessary.
Every post I made was specific in that there was an accusation of Murder made on social media, by an employee or a contractor.
The company has its own rights.
I stated that there will be contractual obligations on bringing parties into disrepute, and that there is due process to be followed.
All of which you've echoed in different terms.
Nice to see that I've brought you down to my low level of thinking.
The initial report was that Paria was firing contractors and employees that accused them of murder. The insinuation was that this was being done without due process to which you agreed that it was acceptable due to the company protecting its reputation.
My arguement was that any terminations of contracts of any kind has to be done via due process. Given that this incident happened about a month ago, it is unlikely that if anyone was fired, that it was done legally.
When they sue, its taxpayers money spending and nobody would be held accountable. So I guess in sheit hole Trinidad, anything goes...
Your high horse argument is that its low level thinking to believe that employees and Contractors and Employers have a duty of mutual respect, obligations to avoid bringing contraparties into disrepute.
However local Industrial court and business practice have supported the fact there are obligations to avoid disrepute in general.
The public accusation of Murder is worthy of sanction.
As youve belatedly stated- there is a framework to be followed-which was obvious.
Well I thought so.
Cite your source... or else just rest it.
De Dragon wrote:Red Colostomy Bag talks a good LFD RFD PNM talk, but notice in all his pro JUHN Scarfy and he pally-wally Speaker husband, LFD RFD PNM utterings, not one call for Paria to be removed pending the investigation. Not one negative remark about Paria, but defending their right to fire people without due process due to, and again it's his definition, of egregious conduct/comments.
When Black Massa JUHN Scarfy accused SITTING members of the GORTT of plotting to murder a journalist without a shred of evidence, his kant was sewn shut then. Now he suddenly wants to spew verbal diarrhea about accusations without merit?
Cult Sheep, please!
Redman wrote:De Dragon wrote:Red Colostomy Bag talks a good LFD RFD PNM talk, but notice in all his pro JUHN Scarfy and he pally-wally Speaker husband, LFD RFD PNM utterings, not one call for Paria to be removed pending the investigation. Not one negative remark about Paria, but defending their right to fire people without due process due to, and again it's his definition, of egregious conduct/comments.
When Black Massa JUHN Scarfy accused SITTING members of the GORTT of plotting to murder a journalist without a shred of evidence, his kant was sewn shut then. Now he suddenly wants to spew verbal diarrhea about accusations without merit?
Cult Sheep, please!
All you could do is blather about personalities,like a little snatty nose child.
You cannot say I'm wrong and bring a rationale.
You running your mouth on Gladiators thoughts not my posts.
You say you working Pt Lisas long time .
So you know about not being caught maligning your employer or client, and what rights you have as owner of a company who has a reputation to protect.
Local industrial court allows for that if warranted.
That was my singular point.
If you're saying Im wrong go ahead and explain why, but you can't ,cuz it's a fact.
That fact doesn't change because you don't like who is in charge.
So blather on ...in your normal tantrum noise.
It eh changing sheit.
Redman wrote:Gladiator wrote:Redman wrote:Gladiator wrote:Haha...you wish. Your level of thinking is reserved for yourself and maybe we'll...max.Redman wrote:We agree however you have drifted the context of the conversation.
This is about a company's right to protect it's reputation as it seems necessary.
Every post I made was specific in that there was an accusation of Murder made on social media, by an employee or a contractor.
The company has its own rights.
I stated that there will be contractual obligations on bringing parties into disrepute, and that there is due process to be followed.
All of which you've echoed in different terms.
Nice to see that I've brought you down to my low level of thinking.
The initial report was that Paria was firing contractors and employees that accused them of murder. The insinuation was that this was being done without due process to which you agreed that it was acceptable due to the company protecting its reputation.
My arguement was that any terminations of contracts of any kind has to be done via due process. Given that this incident happened about a month ago, it is unlikely that if anyone was fired, that it was done legally.
When they sue, its taxpayers money spending and nobody would be held accountable. So I guess in sheit hole Trinidad, anything goes...
Your high horse argument is that its low level thinking to believe that employees and Contractors and Employers have a duty of mutual respect, obligations to avoid bringing contraparties into disrepute.
However local Industrial court and business practice have supported the fact there are obligations to avoid disrepute in general.
The public accusation of Murder is worthy of sanction.
As youve belatedly stated- there is a framework to be followed-which was obvious.
Well I thought so.
Cite your source... or else just rest it.
A source?
Local Industrial Courts allow Egregious Conduct outside of Employment to trump due process. Meaning of it's egregious, then the court allows that one can be fired summarily.
That's on their website...go look for it ...a 2018 doc.
The constitution doesn't protect against consequences of what is said in public...
So you accept that there are consequences to statements made in public fora.
Companies like person's have a right to protect themselves, reputations impact balance sheets through goodwill.
Contractors are held to terms in their Codes of Conduct.
In the context of Paria...in 2022 does the accusation of Murder meet the above criteria?
I think so.
MDtuner70 wrote:Please Redman, send the link for the blogger wuk. I promise I will hit all quotas and more!
De Dragon wrote:MDtuner70 wrote:Please Redman, send the link for the blogger wuk. I promise I will hit all quotas and more!
You willing to be dotish so for ah KFC 3 piece?
Gladiator wrote:Redman wrote:Gladiator wrote:Redman wrote:Gladiator wrote:Haha...you wish. Your level of thinking is reserved for yourself and maybe we'll...max.Redman wrote:We agree however you have drifted the context of the conversation.
This is about a company's right to protect it's reputation as it seems necessary.
Every post I made was specific in that there was an accusation of Murder made on social media, by an employee or a contractor.
The company has its own rights.
I stated that there will be contractual obligations on bringing parties into disrepute, and that there is due process to be followed.
All of which you've echoed in different terms.
Nice to see that I've brought you down to my low level of thinking.
The initial report was that Paria was firing contractors and employees that accused them of murder. The insinuation was that this was being done without due process to which you agreed that it was acceptable due to the company protecting its reputation.
My arguement was that any terminations of contracts of any kind has to be done via due process. Given that this incident happened about a month ago, it is unlikely that if anyone was fired, that it was done legally.
When they sue, its taxpayers money spending and nobody would be held accountable. So I guess in sheit hole Trinidad, anything goes...
Your high horse argument is that its low level thinking to believe that employees and Contractors and Employers have a duty of mutual respect, obligations to avoid bringing contraparties into disrepute.
However local Industrial court and business practice have supported the fact there are obligations to avoid disrepute in general.
The public accusation of Murder is worthy of sanction.
As youve belatedly stated- there is a framework to be followed-which was obvious.
Well I thought so.
Cite your source... or else just rest it.
A source?
Local Industrial Courts allow Egregious Conduct outside of Employment to trump due process. Meaning of it's egregious, then the court allows that one can be fired summarily.
That's on their website...go look for it ...a 2018 doc.
The constitution doesn't protect against consequences of what is said in public...
So you accept that there are consequences to statements made in public fora.
Companies like person's have a right to protect themselves, reputations impact balance sheets through goodwill.
Contractors are held to terms in their Codes of Conduct.
In the context of Paria...in 2022 does the accusation of Murder meet the above criteria?
I think so.
There you go grasping at straws again to try and justify your heartless PNM mindset. Go read some case studies and learn something, Egregious Conduct as it relates to the Industrial relations act applies to acts of violence, stealing, narcotics use and trade etc. Commenting or agreeing with someone's post accusing the company of taking the wrong actions causing 4 divers to lose their life does not apply.
But then again, if they terminate contractors and employees and they take it to court, Paria which is run by taxpayers funds stands the charges. Unless the management themselves are held liable, they would always take the easy way out to please the PNM politicians.
Redman wrote:Gladiator wrote:Redman wrote:Gladiator wrote:Redman wrote:Gladiator wrote:Haha...you wish. Your level of thinking is reserved for yourself and maybe we'll...max.Redman wrote:We agree however you have drifted the context of the conversation.
This is about a company's right to protect it's reputation as it seems necessary.
Every post I made was specific in that there was an accusation of Murder made on social media, by an employee or a contractor.
The company has its own rights.
I stated that there will be contractual obligations on bringing parties into disrepute, and that there is due process to be followed.
All of which you've echoed in different terms.
Nice to see that I've brought you down to my low level of thinking.
The initial report was that Paria was firing contractors and employees that accused them of murder. The insinuation was that this was being done without due process to which you agreed that it was acceptable due to the company protecting its reputation.
My arguement was that any terminations of contracts of any kind has to be done via due process. Given that this incident happened about a month ago, it is unlikely that if anyone was fired, that it was done legally.
When they sue, its taxpayers money spending and nobody would be held accountable. So I guess in sheit hole Trinidad, anything goes...
Your high horse argument is that its low level thinking to believe that employees and Contractors and Employers have a duty of mutual respect, obligations to avoid bringing contraparties into disrepute.
However local Industrial court and business practice have supported the fact there are obligations to avoid disrepute in general.
The public accusation of Murder is worthy of sanction.
As youve belatedly stated- there is a framework to be followed-which was obvious.
Well I thought so.
Cite your source... or else just rest it.
A source?
Local Industrial Courts allow Egregious Conduct outside of Employment to trump due process. Meaning of it's egregious, then the court allows that one can be fired summarily.
That's on their website...go look for it ...a 2018 doc.
The constitution doesn't protect against consequences of what is said in public...
So you accept that there are consequences to statements made in public fora.
Companies like person's have a right to protect themselves, reputations impact balance sheets through goodwill.
Contractors are held to terms in their Codes of Conduct.
In the context of Paria...in 2022 does the accusation of Murder meet the above criteria?
I think so.
There you go grasping at straws again to try and justify your heartless PNM mindset. Go read some case studies and learn something, Egregious Conduct as it relates to the Industrial relations act applies to acts of violence, stealing, narcotics use and trade etc. Commenting or agreeing with someone's post accusing the company of taking the wrong actions causing 4 divers to lose their life does not apply.
But then again, if they terminate contractors and employees and they take it to court, Paria which is run by taxpayers funds stands the charges. Unless the management themselves are held liable, they would always take the easy way out to please the PNM politicians.
You think that only happens under the PNM?
L
O
L
You're acting as if you and Dumbass are the only ones who have ever had anything to do with employment law.
In this hyper sensitive environment I'm sure Paria or any Co will have one or two ideas of how to act.
You've already acknowledged that your entire knowledge of the event is off a fb post.
Yet you're sure that Paria wrong,and the employee or contractor innocent, no process followed,and the injustice is cuz PNM.
You're moving the goalpost again, being general in a specific conversation.
In every post I reference accusations or Murder, as per the claim in the fb posts.
An accusation of Murder by someone working in the organisation is a far cry from
"Commenting or agreeing with someone's post accusing the company of taking the wrong actions causing 4 divers to lose their life"
Egregious is a matter of context.
Link the source of your limitations on what it applies to.
De Dragon wrote:Redman wrote:Gladiator wrote:Redman wrote:Gladiator wrote:Redman wrote:Gladiator wrote:Haha...you wish. Your level of thinking is reserved for yourself and maybe we'll...max.Redman wrote:We agree however you have drifted the context of the conversation.
This is about a company's right to protect it's reputation as it seems necessary.
Every post I made was specific in that there was an accusation of Murder made on social media, by an employee or a contractor.
The company has its own rights.
I stated that there will be contractual obligations on bringing parties into disrepute, and that there is due process to be followed.
All of which you've echoed in different terms.
Nice to see that I've brought you down to my low level of thinking.
The initial report was that Paria was firing contractors and employees that accused them of murder. The insinuation was that this was being done without due process to which you agreed that it was acceptable due to the company protecting its reputation.
My arguement was that any terminations of contracts of any kind has to be done via due process. Given that this incident happened about a month ago, it is unlikely that if anyone was fired, that it was done legally.
When they sue, its taxpayers money spending and nobody would be held accountable. So I guess in sheit hole Trinidad, anything goes...
Your high horse argument is that its low level thinking to believe that employees and Contractors and Employers have a duty of mutual respect, obligations to avoid bringing contraparties into disrepute.
However local Industrial court and business practice have supported the fact there are obligations to avoid disrepute in general.
The public accusation of Murder is worthy of sanction.
As youve belatedly stated- there is a framework to be followed-which was obvious.
Well I thought so.
Cite your source... or else just rest it.
A source?
Local Industrial Courts allow Egregious Conduct outside of Employment to trump due process. Meaning of it's egregious, then the court allows that one can be fired summarily.
That's on their website...go look for it ...a 2018 doc.
The constitution doesn't protect against consequences of what is said in public...
So you accept that there are consequences to statements made in public fora.
Companies like person's have a right to protect themselves, reputations impact balance sheets through goodwill.
Contractors are held to terms in their Codes of Conduct.
In the context of Paria...in 2022 does the accusation of Murder meet the above criteria?
I think so.
There you go grasping at straws again to try and justify your heartless PNM mindset. Go read some case studies and learn something, Egregious Conduct as it relates to the Industrial relations act applies to acts of violence, stealing, narcotics use and trade etc. Commenting or agreeing with someone's post accusing the company of taking the wrong actions causing 4 divers to lose their life does not apply.
But then again, if they terminate contractors and employees and they take it to court, Paria which is run by taxpayers funds stands the charges. Unless the management themselves are held liable, they would always take the easy way out to please the PNM politicians.
You think that only happens under the PNM?
L
O
L
You're acting as if you and Dumbass are the only ones who have ever had anything to do with employment law.
In this hyper sensitive environment I'm sure Paria or any Co will have one or two ideas of how to act.
You've already acknowledged that your entire knowledge of the event is off a fb post.
Yet you're sure that Paria wrong,and the employee or contractor innocent, no process followed,and the injustice is cuz PNM.
You're moving the goalpost again, being general in a specific conversation.
In every post I reference accusations or Murder, as per the claim in the fb posts.
An accusation of Murder by someone working in the organisation is a far cry from
"Commenting or agreeing with someone's post accusing the company of taking the wrong actions causing 4 divers to lose their life"
Egregious is a matter of context.
Link the source of your limitations on what it applies to.
Yet you're perfectly willing to let Paria define egregious?
You still haven't said why the lone survivor of this incompetent LFD RFD PNM run State company isn't being sued for calling Paria murderers., in a video post too, so should be easier to prove.
You also still haven't justified Paria's team of George/Mohammed/Piper still remaining at their posts, with not only access to the scene, documentation and employees involved.
Ramesh on de scene.Everybody hadda hush, so he could handle the scenesVal wrote:Aside from the e-fighting above, what is the latest on this case? Or did 7 days pass already?
Ramesh, Prakash and Glen are doing their job I would assume.Val wrote:Aside from the e-fighting above, what is the latest on this case? Or did 7 days pass already?
Redman wrote:De Dragon wrote:Redman wrote:Gladiator wrote:Redman wrote:Gladiator wrote:Redman wrote:Gladiator wrote:Haha...you wish. Your level of thinking is reserved for yourself and maybe we'll...max.
The initial report was that Paria was firing contractors and employees that accused them of murder. The insinuation was that this was being done without due process to which you agreed that it was acceptable due to the company protecting its reputation.
My arguement was that any terminations of contracts of any kind has to be done via due process. Given that this incident happened about a month ago, it is unlikely that if anyone was fired, that it was done legally.
When they sue, its taxpayers money spending and nobody would be held accountable. So I guess in sheit hole Trinidad, anything goes...
Your high horse argument is that its low level thinking to believe that employees and Contractors and Employers have a duty of mutual respect, obligations to avoid bringing contraparties into disrepute.
However local Industrial court and business practice have supported the fact there are obligations to avoid disrepute in general.
The public accusation of Murder is worthy of sanction.
As youve belatedly stated- there is a framework to be followed-which was obvious.
Well I thought so.
Cite your source... or else just rest it.
A source?
Local Industrial Courts allow Egregious Conduct outside of Employment to trump due process. Meaning of it's egregious, then the court allows that one can be fired summarily.
That's on their website...go look for it ...a 2018 doc.
The constitution doesn't protect against consequences of what is said in public...
So you accept that there are consequences to statements made in public fora.
Companies like person's have a right to protect themselves, reputations impact balance sheets through goodwill.
Contractors are held to terms in their Codes of Conduct.
In the context of Paria...in 2022 does the accusation of Murder meet the above criteria?
I think so.
There you go grasping at straws again to try and justify your heartless PNM mindset. Go read some case studies and learn something, Egregious Conduct as it relates to the Industrial relations act applies to acts of violence, stealing, narcotics use and trade etc. Commenting or agreeing with someone's post accusing the company of taking the wrong actions causing 4 divers to lose their life does not apply.
But then again, if they terminate contractors and employees and they take it to court, Paria which is run by taxpayers funds stands the charges. Unless the management themselves are held liable, they would always take the easy way out to please the PNM politicians.
You think that only happens under the PNM?
L
O
L
You're acting as if you and Dumbass are the only ones who have ever had anything to do with employment law.
In this hyper sensitive environment I'm sure Paria or any Co will have one or two ideas of how to act.
You've already acknowledged that your entire knowledge of the event is off a fb post.
Yet you're sure that Paria wrong,and the employee or contractor innocent, no process followed,and the injustice is cuz PNM.
You're moving the goalpost again, being general in a specific conversation.
In every post I reference accusations or Murder, as per the claim in the fb posts.
An accusation of Murder by someone working in the organisation is a far cry from
"Commenting or agreeing with someone's post accusing the company of taking the wrong actions causing 4 divers to lose their life"
Egregious is a matter of context.
Link the source of your limitations on what it applies to.
Yet you're perfectly willing to let Paria define egregious?
You still haven't said why the lone survivor of this incompetent LFD RFD PNM run State company isn't being sued for calling Paria murderers., in a video post too, so should be easier to prove.
You also still haven't justified Paria's team of George/Mohammed/Piper still remaining at their posts, with not only access to the scene, documentation and employees involved.
Who else defines a company's actions? you?
LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE- action is taken -and if there is a dispute-its resolved, by court or whatever.
De Dragon wrote:Redman wrote:De Dragon wrote:Redman wrote:Gladiator wrote:Redman wrote:Gladiator wrote:Redman wrote:
Your high horse argument is that its low level thinking to believe that employees and Contractors and Employers have a duty of mutual respect, obligations to avoid bringing contraparties into disrepute.
However local Industrial court and business practice have supported the fact there are obligations to avoid disrepute in general.
The public accusation of Murder is worthy of sanction.
As youve belatedly stated- there is a framework to be followed-which was obvious.
Well I thought so.
Cite your source... or else just rest it.
A source?
Local Industrial Courts allow Egregious Conduct outside of Employment to trump due process. Meaning of it's egregious, then the court allows that one can be fired summarily.
That's on their website...go look for it ...a 2018 doc.
The constitution doesn't protect against consequences of what is said in public...
So you accept that there are consequences to statements made in public fora.
Companies like person's have a right to protect themselves, reputations impact balance sheets through goodwill.
Contractors are held to terms in their Codes of Conduct.
In the context of Paria...in 2022 does the accusation of Murder meet the above criteria?
I think so.
There you go grasping at straws again to try and justify your heartless PNM mindset. Go read some case studies and learn something, Egregious Conduct as it relates to the Industrial relations act applies to acts of violence, stealing, narcotics use and trade etc. Commenting or agreeing with someone's post accusing the company of taking the wrong actions causing 4 divers to lose their life does not apply.
But then again, if they terminate contractors and employees and they take it to court, Paria which is run by taxpayers funds stands the charges. Unless the management themselves are held liable, they would always take the easy way out to please the PNM politicians.
You think that only happens under the PNM?
L
O
L
You're acting as if you and Dumbass are the only ones who have ever had anything to do with employment law.
In this hyper sensitive environment I'm sure Paria or any Co will have one or two ideas of how to act.
You've already acknowledged that your entire knowledge of the event is off a fb post.
Yet you're sure that Paria wrong,and the employee or contractor innocent, no process followed,and the injustice is cuz PNM.
You're moving the goalpost again, being general in a specific conversation.
In every post I reference accusations or Murder, as per the claim in the fb posts.
An accusation of Murder by someone working in the organisation is a far cry from
"Commenting or agreeing with someone's post accusing the company of taking the wrong actions causing 4 divers to lose their life"
Egregious is a matter of context.
Link the source of your limitations on what it applies to.
Yet you're perfectly willing to let Paria define egregious?
You still haven't said why the lone survivor of this incompetent LFD RFD PNM run State company isn't being sued for calling Paria murderers., in a video post too, so should be easier to prove.
You also still haven't justified Paria's team of George/Mohammed/Piper still remaining at their posts, with not only access to the scene, documentation and employees involved.
Who else defines a company's actions? you?
LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE- action is taken -and if there is a dispute-its resolved, by court or whatever.
Yes so Boodram get PAP letter yet? Anyone else? I know $250 million is small thing for big LFD RFD PNM Future Corrupt Thieves Club boys, but it is still our money that Paria will have to pay for wrongful termination.
Yet you braying here about people being fired without due process
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: pugboy, shake d livin wake d dead and 88 guests