Originally Posted by
4andCounting
I think that it illustrates that even within your own list the relative value carries different weight depending on your circumstances. In your case I agree. If longevity and position on list are relatively equal then they should try to remain that way. That sounds fair to me. The problems with that do get more difficult in different parts of the list. On the senior side you have excessive longevity vs high bidding power. Around the upgrade line you have a wide variety of longevities and upgrade time variance. And in the middle of the captain list you also have longevity vs. Bidding power discrepancies.
It's no wonder why these things always go to arbitration. It's very complicated and not only does everyone puts a different value on their years of service. The value can vary dramatically at different parts of the list.
Currently, both sides junior CAs are summer 2012 hires. 2012 is where it starts to even out, in terms of upgrades and QOL. Senior to that is where it gets complicated all the way up to the number one slots on both sides. You are correct on why it always goes to arbitration. In the end, some will gain one way and others will gain the other way. Neither should totally lose it all and there are some on both sides that fall into this category.