Tiger 1050
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2007
- Messages
- 882
- Reaction score
- 12
I find what I've read it to be both highly imaginative and entirely comical literature myself. To presume "bad faith" is a leap of interstellar proportions for starters. Should any contract proposal mandate the acceptance of a 50 cent per hour wage rate, there'd equally be no compelling reason for the majority of the electorate to accept that either, nor any onus attendant to their stated desires to never vote such a travesty into play. That's regardless of wheher or not said kingly wage was suggested in any arbitration or not. 50 cents per hour would also remain a mere proposal,and one that requires no special respect so as not to be considered any rejection by way of any supposed/imagined/fantasized "bad faith".
You make a solid point. However there is written and verbal (video) evidence that strongly suggests this "bad faith" is the very essence of your plan. So, yeah, I do not think the bad faith argument is, as you would put it, wholesale insanity. To plainly argue that a 50 cent raise is insufficient is one thing. To agree to binding arbitration and then after the fact do everything you can avoid your obligation and claiming now it is subject to a vote is unfortunate. If I understand your point, you must understand mine. This is not about what contract provisions you must accept. It is about the fact that you had ALREADY accepted the arbitration and any subsequent award! We'll let the court decide...