I think all we need look for here is to be treated in accordance with the law (rather than according to some bad habits).
My previous round was about the leave pay clause - my argument was that non-parties received prejudicial treatment in terms of the rules. Accordingly the agreement cannot lawfully be extended to non-parties. It never even got to arbitration; I just got left alone for a while. But now I notice they have changed the central agreement so that the leave pay clause is no longer prejudicial to non-parties.
I've got to admit I'm feeling frustrated on two fronts -
1. That no-one has ever challenged this sort of issue before, and
2. The ease with which they can overcome these challenges.
I feel like you can win battles, but ultimately you can't win the war.
At least not as an individual.
My previous round was about the leave pay clause - my argument was that non-parties received prejudicial treatment in terms of the rules. Accordingly the agreement cannot lawfully be extended to non-parties. It never even got to arbitration; I just got left alone for a while. But now I notice they have changed the central agreement so that the leave pay clause is no longer prejudicial to non-parties.
I've got to admit I'm feeling frustrated on two fronts -
1. That no-one has ever challenged this sort of issue before, and
2. The ease with which they can overcome these challenges.
I feel like you can win battles, but ultimately you can't win the war.
At least not as an individual.
Comment