So you expected this delay then. What obligation is he bound to? Seems if we are going to mutually employ an arbitrator we would inform him of our mutual agreement and expectation. What would be an acceptable timeline, now that we are making stuff up as we go?

The transcripts of the hearing haven't even been finalized. The arbitrator can't do much without those. We're still weeks or months from a decision.

Looks like the company and Malone/Phinney (contract admin chairman) have implicitly agreed to blow off the contractual timeline. I'm sure our guys thought they'd get something in return for solving the company's problems. Oops.

Phinney already seems to be nearby ********** whenever the company successfully stomps all over our contact. Get him out.

Not saying he should stay but if you remove him, who goes in his place?

There are a couple of guys I'm aware of with impeccable credentials and experience who would be excellent. Not sure if Malone would hire them... or if they'd work for him.

It's time to finish the administration purge we started last summer.

Sounds like this administration can't multi-task. The profit sharing grievances hearings haven't even been scheduled yet.

Weak, just weak.

So then that is a worthless clause. Great. Some good lawyering right there.

Yes, it's horrible. Guys will have to wait a extra 60 days or so to get their retro. We could make lots of noise and push him I suppose. That would probably solve the whole retro situation! Is there reverse retro?

Where do you come up with that 60 days above? It seems very open ended to me. It could drag out until we sign the contract. And the point is not that they have to 'wait' for their retro, the point is that we apparently gave up 3.B.6 for this, and it is completely in the company's favor. They can negotiate/decide this at their leisure.

And delayed wages are affected by TVM. They should get interest as well imho.

J.B. in scheduling would be a good start.

Whoa James, just fricken whoa!

The TVM argument - for some of these yahoo's - only applies when supporting their weak positions on Section 6 negotiations, not when discussing any other lost income. (i.e. 321 pay)