Hello Nic4.
I disagree. I am with you on the harm being a consideration. But I don't think the higher court sees it the way you do. We all have our points, and flash points. Theirs being more distanced. In this day and age, a lot of people say we are all just lucky to have a job, and now AMR might mean more security for everyone, and what is the harm in that? I don't know. I just go back to the court that ruled. And they seem to be aware of the harm issue, but are not as hard wired to it as you. They seem to have said, let us wait and see what the final outcome is, then we can go there.
I see no warning or instruction whatsoever directing either party to use the Nicolau Award at all. I only see the clear statement that it may Not possibly be in the final product.
"Plaintiffs seek to escape this conclusion by framing
their harm as the lost opportunity to have a CBA implementing
the Nicolau Award put to a ratification vote. Because
merely putting a CBA effectuating the Nicolau Award to a
ratification vote will not itself alleviate the West Pilots furloughs,
Plaintiffs have not identified a sufficiently concrete
injury.2 Additionally, USAPA’s final proposal may yet be one
that does not work the disadvantages Plaintiffs fear, even if
that proposal is not the Nicolau Award.3" 9th Court of Appeals, SF
So there is their opinion, as we all know. They are the party of the majority that has judicial rule in the case, and you see the harm issue is obviously still questionable in their eye. Notice they also said you may not be harmed, and the proposal might not be the Nicolau Award. So you have the court that had the final opinion make this stand, and this is why I patently reject the West contention the Nicolau has to be it. I do, however, agree with you that you cannot be run over willfully, and harmed in the definition of reasonableness. What is reasonable?