Quote Originally Posted by kevinpate View Post
One difference I think I see in the stalemate on city/FD that wasn't there for city/PD, assuming reports here are accurate.

for city/FD, there seems to be a requirement by FD that any agreement will need to include language re city got slapped in arbitration. the reports appear to be FD offered to forego the raise, even roll over an existing contract, but that language remained in some fashion as part of the offer.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong. If not, maybe the better option is to drop the language and go forward, both sides starting fresh. Maybe that is simply not possible, but it seems like it ought to be.
Your right about the difference between the FD and the PD which is causing the stalemate. You are also correct in regards to the language in the arbitrators ruling, so no, your not reading it wrong. As far as it being a better option to drop the language you have to ask yourself a couple of questions. Better for who? Better why? Who stands to gain by dropping the language? What do they stand to gain? Let me here your thoughts and I'll come back with the answers.