Originally Posted by
BobZ
well....I am just dumbfounded at reading a suggestion that a pay model of equal pay rates would produce a rational argument (to an arbitrator or anyone else) that there then is no basis for discriminating subgroup integration of merging a seniority list?
Are you joking? Or what?
I took a break from this board for a while because the level of discourse had degenerated. It would be nice if we could just have discussions on here as if we were standing in front of each other.
I'll start again, by addressing an obvious point you make:
Originally Posted by
BobZ
...relative position on the seniority list dictates a lot more than just the pay rate...
I agree, relative position on a list does dictate a lot.
But, besides money and pay, please name the things that relative position on a seniority list dictates that an arbitrator would care about?
Maybe even explain how he, or she would write it down in their decision/award to justify altering the list, because it was so important to favor one group over the other, because of it?
Respectfully,
New K Now