Yes, yes, and the tribe's "Ghost Shirts"/Integrity Matters will keep you all safe from the cavalry's fire.
I'll leave any such issues of faith to be eventually determined by the court(s).
You asked for the definition of wide range of reasonableness.
I gave it to you.
It is so typical and in complete usapa fashion that you disregard the entire definition.
Just as when the 9th said "may not do the harm plaintiffs fear, even if it is not the Nic". The only part of the entire sentence you guys read, and entirely out of context to boot is "not the Nic", and you think that is in your favor.
Now Silver specifically says "provided they have a legitimate union purpose", and you either disregard that altogether or fantasize over what that means, when the SCOTUS has clearly stated before exactly what that means, and usapa fails the SCOTUS definition.
No tee shirts, or ITT videos needed, and your quips instead of arguments is most telling.
Usapa has no LUP. Usapa's goal is to disregard an arbitrated award and advance their constituency at the direct cost and detriment of the West.
First it was the scab lawyer and his "we will offer a cost neutral contract in exchange for labor peace". I.e. We will use The West's better pay and benefits, sacrifice that, and get the company to renege with us.
If the company goes back to the 9th, it is all fair game, and you had better hope assessments don't get attached to your PBCG benefits.