Originally Posted by
Nevets
Well, I was speaking to Tony's post so when you quote my reply to him, then you inject yourself into our conversation.
Either way, my point is valid. Both sets of language are boiler plate for when they were negotiated. That's the point of pattern bargaining.
There you go again. I'm glad you're such an authority on EVERYTHING!
In legal circles, "boilerplate language" refers to generic legalese which is thrown into every contract, usually as a band-aid or disclaimer to satisfy the lawyers. Here's an example from our contract:
Q. Savings Clause
Should any provision of this Agreement be rendered invalid by
reason of any legislation or other act of any government agency
or declared illegal by any court of competent jurisdiction, such
provision will immediately become null and void, leaving the
remainder of the Agreement in full force and effect.
Your arbitration for new equipment clause is not boilerplate that was thrown in. It is a poorly negotiated and poorly worded piece of trash that is in every way legally binding, and in fact, just totally screwed all of us. As Bozo said, that's because you guys think you're the best and brightest, yet you can't even write good language. You just have a bunch of folks like yourself who think you have all the answers and argue a bad position because you have to "be right".