Really? It all comes down to who has the smartest lawyers.
So facts or the rule of law has nothing to do with it.
You really are believing your own BS.
God luck with that.
Do you think that every legal decision that is handed down is clearly and truly based on correct rule of law? That innocent people never lose and guilty never win? If so, why do we need appeals courts. Why has this gone on so long?
You forget that I have said that I see your side of things. That if you put two people in a room to make a decision without any knowledge of the RLA and labor law they may stop at "you agreed to the process...." and side with you. But, that isn't the way it works and it is not how it turned out.
Both of our attorneys advised us to vote for the the MOU. They know what their clients want, so I see just a few reasons for their recommendations;
-The AOL attorneys got it wrong
-USAPA attorneys got it wrong
-One side's attorneys know they got it wrong but want to keep squeezing the golden goose
- The Hummel haters were right, he knows we can't win, and they put this language in the MOU to get the east to vote for it and will later say "Sorry, we did the best we could, let's move on!"
I don't know which it is. Maybe there is another reason, but I know you guys didn't vote for the MOU by 97% thinking it killed the NIC. I just question a lot of what the west puts out and some of what the east does. You will see me ask more about your positions because I really don't care for you and your manner. But here is one thing I don't see about a popular east opinion-If the Nic is gone because it was never used and the MOU supersedes it, doesn't that also mean that the DOH list presented to the company is gone?