Metroyet
Veteran
- Nov 1, 2008
- 2,571
- 5,664
I would imagine most rational judges would be haste to march into a ratified contract, which is an INTERNAL UNION AFFAIR and bust it up. Many, many contracts have been approved by slimmer margins than you propose, and that does not qualify for intervention. Based on what the 9th said, if someone tries to get an injunction against a ratified contract, one clearly that does not have to have the Nicolau Award in it, and uses the Nic as the "harm" it will be over and done with in minutes, denied. As far as the unity thing goes? We all know how the west did all in their power to keep the east under LOA 93. That, was a HUGE tactical blunder.
Right. Uh, just going to ignore the TA and the fact that you entered into binding arbitration? The only ones who seem to forget that process is the East. I'm not going to belabor any of this. It's all been said a million times and i've got other things to do in my life than keep squabbling with the East. No one is changing anyone's mind here. I'm just saying a ratified contract is a time bomb. You can count on legal action the minute it's ratified. We all know how it turned out last time. You have a decision to make. Chance it and vote for a DOH contract. Or live with LOA93 forever. That's all I'm saying. No new info. here. Also, if there is one legal point that should be crystal clear to all parties involved it's this:
Ratification does not provide you legal shelter. This idea you have that "we won so we're right" isn't going to fly. There is no shortage of historical events disadvantaging minorities where your premise was shown to be illegal. Union matters or not.
Also, what was the "HUGE" tactical blunder? You seem to be inferring that there is going to be some kind of retribution from the East against the West.
Do you know what DFR stands for? Have you learned anything? This is why you guys are going back to federal court with 100% certainty upon ratification. Hurry up and vote.