Originally Posted by
eaglefly
Never heard this. Besides, that is outside the scope of arbitration. Any "trades" would have to be negotiated between the parties and not the arbitrators and then YES, the arbitrators could allow that between the parties (even with a mediator), but arbitrators cannot themselves go outside the scope of the MOU provisions.
You are enmeshed in misguided fantasy and rationalizing your position with what you want the arbitration to be as opposed to what it is. This makes it easier to convince yourself voting for this TA is the best option.
Again, this is all erroneous. You are confusing THIS arbitration (which is not like most due to the specific provisions of the MOU) with NEGOTIATION. Even IF an opportunity to negotiate should occur during the arbitral process, it just means we have MORE leverage because the arbitrators hands are tied from unilaterally crafting tit-for-tat valuation trades. That's actually a BETTER place to negotiate then what has occurs so far.
Might I suggest you contact the source, that being APA legal and talk to EJ yourself for a better understanding of the arbitration situation ?
I'm not sure if you're intentionally missing the gist of what I'm trying to get through to you or not.
I disagree that it's a BETTER place to be. At this point, my gut says we are getting a contract VALUE that is overall higher than the present one.
If we go to arbitration we lose the overall higher value and end up with status quo. Regardless of what we trade, it's going to end up being cost neutral which as an overall value is much lower than what is currently on the table, IMO.
We need the APA to provide relevant details and costs involved with everything as well as the language...