Originally Posted by
guppie
The hold back was about potential lawsuits over the UPA retro payment or signing bonus (whatever you want to call it) methodology. .
I see. Thanks for the clarification. So, the money held back was done so "preemptively" because the company and the union felt there would eventually be blow back. Funny though... I wonder why both sides didn't just call it "retro pay." wouldn't that have been the simpler course of action?