Bear,
Haven't we been through this before?
1. Yes. So I don't know why y'all keep on bringing up your same points, over and over, while completely ignoring other legitimate points of view.
The point is that we both have AFA, DOH is in the ByLaws, and it isn't going to change.
2. Yes, and I have made that point myself, many times. (See #1, above.)
The other point is, the "counter" is some unknown formula that is being proposed to integrate seniority to benefit one group without benefiting the other.
3. This is where I disagree with you. The formulas being proposed are attempting to keep people in their same
relative seniority to where they are now. By definition,
relative seniority does not benefit one group over the other -- it maintains the status quo as much as possible. However, in this particular scenario (the merger of U and HP), strict DOH
DOES benefit one group over the other.
Whom does strict DOH benefit? Ask yourself this: If DOH is used, when there is a layoff, which group will be disproportionately impacted, even though they weren't the ones in danger of immediate liquidation before the merger -- the ex-old-U or ex-HP F/As?
The OTHER group is the one who will unfairly benefit.