View Single Post
Old 06-20-2014 | 10:52 AM
  #32  
PurpleTurtle
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by DrivinTheDash
The single element of the APA proposal that gives me pause, and that I would consider "controlling the situation," is paragraph 16:



This provision, it seems to me, gives APA wide latitude to modify almost everything being agreed to without input/approval/consent of the USAPA side of the house. In the US/HP merger, there was a provision for separate ratification of the JCBA, and, I believe, for changes to the transition agreement. That is, even after SCS was declared, the TA could not be changed without agreement of both east and west. I would be very comfortable with this proposal if paragraph 16 were changed to require consent of both sides of the house to agree to changes after SCS. For example:
A very good point. The 2005 specifically allowed amendments by all parties that signed it. The West always argued SCS did not change that and the company always supported that position.
Reply