Wow, such bombastic talk -- from every side. "The Enemy." Really????
Merriam-Webster defines "enemy" as:
: someone who hates another : someone who attacks or tries to harm another
: something that harms or threatens someone or something
: a group of people (such as a nation) against whom another group is fighting a war
While all this antagonistic language certainly stirs emotion, it really does not do anything else constructive... I'm fairly certain that I am not engaged in armed struggle (war) with the APA. I'm also fairly certain that APA is not hell-bent on hurting me. Finally, I do not think that APA is "attacking" or "attempting to harm" me.
Certainly they are looking to best represent their own members (which, at the moment, does not include me). However, everyone keeps forgetting one very important point -- once they become our CBA, they IMMEDIATELY have a duty to fairly represent all of their members (including me). As long as they are not our CBA, they have no such duty. Thus, if they administer a beating while separate CBA's, we have no recourse. Their latest proposal seems to be a not bad deal -- we get our own representation while they then acquire a legal obligation to look out for all their members.
Maybe we should also tone down the emotion-based rhetoric and work to find the "best" solution (using rational methods and empirical data) that will convince the arbitrators to a fair solution. We can throw rocks and call names all day on the internet, but will that really accomplish anything???
APA may be my adversary or opponent. But, "enemy?" Please...