Відео

My grandfather! Just celebrated his 90th bday!

I'm glad they're doing the work.

✓ \First, the Con Edison has failed to prove that Butler’s non-criminal consumption of a legal substance rose to the level of abuse or that Butler’s consumption of alcohol adversely affected his job performance or the public’s trust (whatever that is). Moreover, the only consequence of off-duty chemical substance abuse is that the employee will be sent for a JFE. Here, Butler was sent for a JFE on December 16, 2014 tested negative for drugs and alcohol. ✓ On December 13, 2014, Butler was purported observed by Officer Brito moving from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat a couple of hundred yards from the DWI checkpoint. Officer Brito did not testify that Butler was driving erratically or displayed other indicia of someone that was driving while impaired. The Union concedes that Officer Brito’s assumption that Butler’s actions were to avoid being identified as either a driver who had been drinking or a driver who might not have had a valid license is reasonable. It is also reasonable for Officer Brito to assume that if he could see Butler then Butler could see him. That assumption is not reasonable. ✓ Officer Brito also demonstrated his expertise and training in many facets of alcohol and drug testing but the only verified test result was the breathalyzer results. This is important because clearly Brito had an animus against Butler. Brito testified that Butler was quietly being difficult and when Brito was asked why he issued Butler a summons for refusing to test AFTER he submitted to a breathalyzer test Brito testified that Butler was walking out of the police station with a summons regardless. Butler was issued a summons that was so patently meritless that the Westchester District Attorney’s office did not even submit opposition to Butler’s motion to dismiss. (Union Exhibit “2“) ✓ The Union submits that Brito’s testimony is troubling. A police officer charged with upholding the law and who described himself as an expert in the observation of behavior under the influence of drugs and alcohol and who is also charged with knowledge of the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law issued a summons that (based on his expertise) he had to know was invalid Brito practically admitted that since Butler gave him a hard time and wasted his time that night (because he did not engage in criminal conduct), he was going to give Butler a hard time. That hard time translated into the issuance of an invalid summons that forced Butler to retain counsel and utterly wasted the time of the Court that dismissed the summons that the Westchester County determined unworthy of opposition. 

✓ \First, the Con Edison has failed to prove that Butler’s non-criminal consumption of a legal substance rose to the level of abuse or that Butler’s consumption of alcohol adversely affected his job performance or the public’s trust (whatever that is). Moreover, the only consequence of off-duty chemical substance abuse is that the employee will be sent for a JFE. Here, Butler was sent for a JFE on December 16, 2014 tested negative for drugs and alcohol. ✓ On December 13, 2014, Butler was purported observed by Officer Brito moving from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat a couple of hundred yards from the DWI checkpoint. Officer Brito did not testify that Butler was driving erratically or displayed other indicia of someone that was driving while impaired. The Union concedes that Officer Brito’s assumption that Butler’s actions were to avoid being identified as either a driver who had been drinking or a driver who might not have had a valid license is reasonable. It is also reasonable for Officer Brito to assume that if he could see Butler then Butler could see him. That assumption is not reasonable. ✓ Officer Brito also demonstrated his expertise and training in many facets of alcohol and drug testing but the only verified test result was the breathalyzer results. This is important because clearly Brito had an animus against Butler. Brito testified that Butler was quietly being difficult and when Brito was asked why he issued Butler a summons for refusing to test AFTER he submitted to a breathalyzer test Brito testified that Butler was walking out of the police station with a summons regardless. Butler was issued a summons that was so patently meritless that the Westchester District Attorney’s office did not even submit opposition to Butler’s motion to dismiss. (Union Exhibit “2“) ✓ The Union submits that Brito’s testimony is troubling. A police officer charged with upholding the law and who described himself as an expert in the observation of behavior under the influence of drugs and alcohol and who is also charged with knowledge of the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law issued a summons that (based on his expertise) he had to know was invalid Brito practically admitted that since Butler gave him a hard time and wasted his time that night (because he did not engage in criminal conduct), he was going to give Butler a hard time. That hard time translated into the issuance of an invalid summons that forced Butler to retain counsel and utterly wasted the time of the Court that dismissed the summons that the Westchester County determined unworthy of opposition. 

Liars liars liars !!! Thieves thieves thieves! I just got a 2,000.00 bill yea! They’ll give you easy payments I’ll be done 2025 how kind of these THIEVES

First, the Con Edison has failed to prove that Butler’s non-criminal consumption of a legal substance rose to the level of abuse or that Butler’s consumption of alcohol adversely affected his job performance or the public’s trust (whatever that is). Moreover, the only consequence of off-duty chemical substance abuse is that the employee will be sent for a JFE. Here, Butler was sent for a JFE on December 16, 2014 tested negative for drugs and alcohol. On December 13, 2014, Butler was purported observed by Officer Brito moving from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat a couple of hundred yards from the DWI checkpoint. Officer Brito did not testify that Butler was driving erratically or displayed other indicia of someone that was driving while impaired. The Union concedes that Officer Brito’s assumption that Butler’s actions were to avoid being identified as either a driver who had been drinking or a driver who might not have had a valid license is reasonable. It is also reasonable for Officer Brito to assume that if he could see Butler then Butler could see him. That assumption is not reasonable. Officer Brito also demonstrated his expertise and training in many facets of alcohol and drug testing but the only verified test result was the breathalyzer results. This is important because clearly Brito had an animus against Butler. Brito testified that Butler was quietly being difficult and when Brito was asked why he issued Butler a summons for refusing to test AFTER he submitted to a breathalyzer test Brito testified that Butler was walking out of the police station with a summons regardless. Butler was issued a summons that was so patently meritless that the Westchester District Attorney’s office did not even submit opposition to Butler’s motion to dismiss. (Union Exhibit “2“) The Union submits that Brito’s testimony is troubling. A police officer charged with upholding the law and who described himself as an expert in the observation of behavior under the influence of drugs and alcohol and who is also charged with knowledge of the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law issued a summons that (based on his expertise) he had to know was invalid Brito practically admitted that since Butler gave him a hard time and wasted his time that night (because he did not engage in criminal conduct), he was going to give Butler a hard time. That hard time translated into the issuance of an invalid summons that forced Butler to retain counsel and utterly wasted the time of the Court that dismissed the summons that the Westchester County determined unworthy of opposition.

\First, the Con Edison has failed to prove that Butler’s non-criminal consumption of a legal substance rose to the level of abuse or that Butler’s consumption of alcohol adversely affected his job performance or the public’s trust (whatever that is). Moreover, the only consequence of off-duty chemical substance abuse is that the employee will be sent for a JFE. Here, Butler was sent for a JFE on December 16, 2014 tested negative for drugs and alcohol. On December 13, 2014, Butler was purported observed by Officer Brito moving from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat a couple of hundred yards from the DWI checkpoint. Officer Brito did not testify that Butler was driving erratically or displayed other indicia of someone that was driving while impaired. The Union concedes that Officer Brito’s assumption that Butler’s actions were to avoid being identified as either a driver who had been drinking or a driver who might not have had a valid license is reasonable. It is also reasonable for Officer Brito to assume that if he could see Butler then Butler could see him. That assumption is not reasonable. Officer Brito also demonstrated his expertise and training in many facets of alcohol and drug testing but the only verified test result was the breathalyzer results. This is important because clearly Brito had an animus against Butler. Brito testified that Butler was quietly being difficult and when Brito was asked why he issued Butler a summons for refusing to test AFTER he submitted to a breathalyzer test Brito testified that Butler was walking out of the police station with a summons regardless. Butler was issued a summons that was so patently meritless that the Westchester District Attorney’s office did not even submit opposition to Butler’s motion to dismiss. (Union Exhibit “2“) The Union submits that Brito’s testimony is troubling. A police officer charged with upholding the law and who described himself as an expert in the observation of behavior under the influence of drugs and alcohol and who is also charged with knowledge of the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law issued a summons that (based on his expertise) he had to know was invalid Brito practically admitted that since Butler gave him a hard time and wasted his time that night (because he did not engage in criminal conduct), he was going to give Butler a hard time. That hard time translated into the issuance of an invalid summons that forced Butler to retain counsel and utterly wasted the time of the Court that dismissed the summons that the Westchester County determined unworthy of opposition. 

\First, the Con Edison has failed to prove that Butler’s non-criminal consumption of a legal substance rose to the level of abuse or that Butler’s consumption of alcohol adversely affected his job performance or the public’s trust (whatever that is). Moreover, the only consequence of off-duty chemical substance abuse is that the employee will be sent for a JFE. Here, Butler was sent for a JFE on December 16, 2014 tested negative for drugs and alcohol. On December 13, 2014, Butler was purported observed by Officer Brito moving from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat a couple of hundred yards from the DWI checkpoint. Officer Brito did not testify that Butler was driving erratically or displayed other indicia of someone that was driving while impaired. The Union concedes that Officer Brito’s assumption that Butler’s actions were to avoid being identified as either a driver who had been drinking or a driver who might not have had a valid license is reasonable. It is also reasonable for Officer Brito to assume that if he could see Butler then Butler could see him. That assumption is not reasonable. Officer Brito also demonstrated his expertise and training in many facets of alcohol and drug testing but the only verified test result was the breathalyzer results. This is important because clearly Brito had an animus against Butler. Brito testified that Butler was quietly being difficult and when Brito was asked why he issued Butler a summons for refusing to test AFTER he submitted to a breathalyzer test Brito testified that Butler was walking out of the police station with a summons regardless. Butler was issued a summons that was so patently meritless that the Westchester District Attorney’s office did not even submit opposition to Butler’s motion to dismiss. (Union Exhibit “2“) The Union submits that Brito’s testimony is troubling. A police officer charged with upholding the law and who described himself as an expert in the observation of behavior under the influence of drugs and alcohol and who is also charged with knowledge of the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law issued a summons that (based on his expertise) he had to know was invalid Brito practically admitted that since Butler gave him a hard time and wasted his time that night (because he did not engage in criminal conduct), he was going to give Butler a hard time. That hard time translated into the issuance of an invalid summons that forced Butler to retain counsel and utterly wasted the time of the Court that dismissed the summons that the Westchester County determined unworthy of opposition. 

\First, the Con Edison has failed to prove that Butler’s non-criminal consumption of a legal substance rose to the level of abuse or that Butler’s consumption of alcohol adversely affected his job performance or the public’s trust (whatever that is). Moreover, the only consequence of off-duty chemical substance abuse is that the employee will be sent for a JFE. Here, Butler was sent for a JFE on December 16, 2014 tested negative for drugs and alcohol. On December 13, 2014, Butler was purported observed by Officer Brito moving from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat a couple of hundred yards from the DWI checkpoint. Officer Brito did not testify that Butler was driving erratically or displayed other indicia of someone that was driving while impaired. The Union concedes that Officer Brito’s assumption that Butler’s actions were to avoid being identified as either a driver who had been drinking or a driver who might not have had a valid license is reasonable. It is also reasonable for Officer Brito to assume that if he could see Butler then Butler could see him. That assumption is not reasonable. Officer Brito also demonstrated his expertise and training in many facets of alcohol and drug testing but the only verified test result was the breathalyzer results. This is important because clearly Brito had an animus against Butler. Brito testified that Butler was quietly being difficult and when Brito was asked why he issued Butler a summons for refusing to test AFTER he submitted to a breathalyzer test Brito testified that Butler was walking out of the police station with a summons regardless. Butler was issued a summons that was so patently meritless that the Westchester District Attorney’s office did not even submit opposition to Butler’s motion to dismiss. (Union Exhibit “2“) The Union submits that Brito’s testimony is troubling. A police officer charged with upholding the law and who described himself as an expert in the observation of behavior under the influence of drugs and alcohol and who is also charged with knowledge of the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law issued a summons that (based on his expertise) he had to know was invalid Brito practically admitted that since Butler gave him a hard time and wasted his time that night (because he did not engage in criminal conduct), he was going to give Butler a hard time. That hard time translated into the issuance of an invalid summons that forced Butler to retain counsel and utterly wasted the time of the Court that dismissed the summons that the Westchester County determined unworthy of opposition. 

\First, the Con Edison has failed to prove that Butler’s non-criminal consumption of a legal substance rose to the level of abuse or that Butler’s consumption of alcohol adversely affected his job performance or the public’s trust (whatever that is). Moreover, the only consequence of off-duty chemical substance abuse is that the employee will be sent for a JFE. Here, Butler was sent for a JFE on December 16, 2014 tested negative for drugs and alcohol. On December 13, 2014, Butler was purported observed by Officer Brito moving from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat a couple of hundred yards from the DWI checkpoint. Officer Brito did not testify that Butler was driving erratically or displayed other indicia of someone that was driving while impaired. The Union concedes that Officer Brito’s assumption that Butler’s actions were to avoid being identified as either a driver who had been drinking or a driver who might not have had a valid license is reasonable. It is also reasonable for Officer Brito to assume that if he could see Butler then Butler could see him. That assumption is not reasonable. Officer Brito also demonstrated his expertise and training in many facets of alcohol and drug testing but the only verified test result was the breathalyzer results. This is important because clearly Brito had an animus against Butler. Brito testified that Butler was quietly being difficult and when Brito was asked why he issued Butler a summons for refusing to test AFTER he submitted to a breathalyzer test Brito testified that Butler was walking out of the police station with a summons regardless. Butler was issued a summons that was so patently meritless that the Westchester District Attorney’s office did not even submit opposition to Butler’s motion to dismiss. (Union Exhibit “2“) The Union submits that Brito’s testimony is troubling. A police officer charged with upholding the law and who described himself as an expert in the observation of behavior under the influence of drugs and alcohol and who is also charged with knowledge of the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law issued a summons that (based on his expertise) he had to know was invalid Brito practically admitted that since Butler gave him a hard time and wasted his time that night (because he did not engage in criminal conduct), he was going to give Butler a hard time. That hard time translated into the issuance of an invalid summons that forced Butler to retain counsel and utterly wasted the time of the Court that dismissed the summons that the Westchester County determined unworthy of opposition. 

Con Ed SUCKS!

S.MART. METERS = MART.IAL S.LAVERY

SAY NO TO THE EXTORTION OF $9.50 A MONTH!! IT IS A NWO SCHEME!! CON ED WORKERS ARE ALREADY PAID TO READ METERS, IT IS PART OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT, ALSO SEND YOUR METER READING TO CON ED VIA PHOTOS!!

Esplendido ! Good Job !

What are all those conedison employees doing down there ?

A

I'm on my way there!

Great job

Guy has s great attitude. He's gonna go places!

I have watched it at least 100 times to adore that Lovely Smile which shows God Words are spoken from Your mouth. Amen

what voltage is present? 277/480?

🦾

Dogs are getting shocked from dis shit

My father was a Con Edison Splicer in the 1960s/70s and died from a non work related illness on Christmas eve when I was a boy! We lived in Woodside Queens and I get emotional every Christmas and just looked up Con Edison Splicer... So thanks for sharing this video of what my Dad did for a living!! Blessings 🙏 John.

Fraud Alert for CDL holders the company is using the medical department and the Westchester county police as an weapon to commit medical fraud, because the head of the corporation security manager abuse his power to commit this crime with help from the union . My Department HR Manager and my Planner was boyfriend and Girlfriend that was working out of the same department and same address so i file a internal conflict of interest against her because her live in boyfriend was suspending me and she was signing off on it . Her Name is Wendy Castro but her new name is Wendy treppicone , the same person that was my planner. Con Edison doesn’t believe in what they are having you ever year go to the learning center is just a front. First, the Con Edison has failed to prove that Butler’s non-criminal consumption of a legal substance rose to the level of abuse or that Butler’s consumption of alcohol adversely affected his job performance or the public’s trust (whatever that is). Moreover, the only consequence of off-duty chemical substance abuse is that the employee will be sent for a JFE. Here, Butler was sent for a JFE on December 16, 2014 tested negative for drugs and alcohol. On December 13, 2014, Butler was purported observed by Officer Brito moving from the driver’s seat to the passenger seat a couple of hundred yards from the DWI checkpoint. Officer Brito did not testify that Butler was driving erratically or displayed other indicia of someone that was driving while impaired. The Union concedes that Officer Brito’s assumption that Butler’s actions were to avoid being identified as either a driver who had been drinking or a driver who might not have had a valid license is reasonable. It is also reasonable for Officer Brito to assume that if he could see Butler then Butler could see him. That assumption is not reasonable. Officer Brito also demonstrated his expertise and training in many facets of alcohol and drug testing but the only verified test result was the breathalyzer results. This is important because clearly Brito had an animus against Butler. Brito testified that Butler was quietly being difficult and when Brito was asked why he issued Butler a summons for refusing to test AFTER he submitted to a breathalyzer test Brito testified that Butler was walking out of the police station with a summons regardless. Butler was issued a summons that was so patently meritless that the Westchester District Attorney’s office did not even submit opposition to Butler’s motion to dismiss. (Union Exhibit “2“) The Union submits that Brito’s testimony is troubling. A police officer charged with upholding the law and who described himself as an expert in the observation of behavior under the influence of drugs and alcohol and who is also charged with knowledge of the NYS Vehicle and Traffic Law issued a summons that (based on his expertise) he had to know was invalid Brito practically admitted that since Butler gave him a hard time and wasted his time that night (because he did not engage in criminal conduct), he was going to give Butler a hard time. That hard time translated into the issuance of an invalid summons that forced Butler to retain counsel and utterly wasted the time of the Court that dismissed the summons that the Westchester County determined unworthy of opposition.

A very important and dangerous job be safe and God bless 🙏

Ug

Maybe stop the power cuts and I’ll think about believing it

Hey, at least ONE thing in NYC will be clean.

This shit is fucking hilarious... people are fucking stupid these days

Make America great again Donald Trump 2021🇺🇲! Screw the green new deal

these meters cause cancer say no to smart meters

Ese señor sienpre está si camisa bajo camara

Good explanation

How the water is drained out from these underground vault in rainy seasons.

As I said just a minute ago on another video somewhat like this. There is a "workaround" (I'll leave it at that) around literally everything (except where your soul will spend eternity. But I digress.) Do your homework. People just refuse to "put in the time and do THEIR OWN homework." And for something of such a serious nature such as this it just boggles my mind. That is all.

Thanks

BS

Too bad it’s permanently closed

What is the goal of the video? Let us know what you are trying to accomplish and why. We can then let you know if it is effective.

Too busy fiddling around with US Women's Football and other social/political topics, showing us how 'right on' ConEdison are to get around to providing electricity to their customers. They can't even provide access to information of the Manhattan outage. Their service outage map was itself an outage. How convenient for them, so the news media companies, the ones in NY that were not effected can't even publicise it further, all a bit of an embarrassment for them. Soon blamed on something as far removed from ConEdison as they can think of. Just CONCENTRATE on providing a service, leave all the 'pride' malarkey and other social/political garbage out of it.

Does Con Ed provide dorm services for employees?

A link on these videos would be useful.

Thank you! Very informational :)

How about a video on how to read these meters?

Let's see. RF radiation, dirty electricity, fire risk, spying.

good