 |
Re: You're missing the point
Author: Mark
Date: 07-06-2013 - 23:42
Dr Zarkoff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only if you're inclined to think negatively,
> primarily because it doesn't specifically require
> the FRA and Amtrak to agree.
And if they don't, an arbitrator has the final word.
> Part (d) is a "negative incentive", and it's NOT
> limited to FRA/Amtrak. IOW, what it says is "you
> guys reach agreement within so many days or any
> participant can invoke arbitration". I completely
> fail to see how the language in this section
> specifically limits the seeking of arbitration
> solely to the FRA and/or Amtrak. It's that phrase
> "any party involved in the development of those
> standards may petition the Surface Transportation
> Board to appoint an arbitrator" which governs.
There's only two parties involved in developing the performance metrics: Amtrak and the FRA.
Merely consulting with other persons or entities does not make them parties in a legal proceeding, nor does it make them involved in developing the metrics. Consultation isn't a contract and doesn't require any agreement to be reached, so there's no dispute that would need to be arbitrated.
Your interpretation of who's a party and thus eligible for arbitration makes no sense from a practical standpoint either. On the list of persons and entities Amtrak and the FRA must consult with is "Amtrak Employees". Do you really think they wrote this to enable all of Amtrak's 20,000 employees to individually petition the STB to appoint an arbitrator to settle differences in opinion? Of course not. If that happened, it would take a decade or more to resolve...
-------------------------------------------------------
> Only if you're inclined to think negatively,
> primarily because it doesn't specifically require
> the FRA and Amtrak to agree.
And if they don't, an arbitrator has the final word.
> Part (d) is a "negative incentive", and it's NOT
> limited to FRA/Amtrak. IOW, what it says is "you
> guys reach agreement within so many days or any
> participant can invoke arbitration". I completely
> fail to see how the language in this section
> specifically limits the seeking of arbitration
> solely to the FRA and/or Amtrak. It's that phrase
> "any party involved in the development of those
> standards may petition the Surface Transportation
> Board to appoint an arbitrator" which governs.
There's only two parties involved in developing the performance metrics: Amtrak and the FRA.
Merely consulting with other persons or entities does not make them parties in a legal proceeding, nor does it make them involved in developing the metrics. Consultation isn't a contract and doesn't require any agreement to be reached, so there's no dispute that would need to be arbitrated.
Your interpretation of who's a party and thus eligible for arbitration makes no sense from a practical standpoint either. On the list of persons and entities Amtrak and the FRA must consult with is "Amtrak Employees". Do you really think they wrote this to enable all of Amtrak's 20,000 employees to individually petition the STB to appoint an arbitrator to settle differences in opinion? Of course not. If that happened, it would take a decade or more to resolve...
