Was: Health Care now Tort reform
dmccread at MACH1.WLU.CA
Thu Sep 14 01:12:09 MDT 1995
Final offer arbitration where the arbitrator determines one of two
possible final offers forces the two sides to try to be realistic. I
think it is a godd system which when I was negotiating salaries for the
faculty back in the 70s, I asked for here. The University did not have to
accept that and they chose not to. I believe it would have made the
faculty less pie in the sky about their demands and maybe make the
UNiversity more realistic in showing why they were offering what they were.
I am not a labour economist BUT I understand that final offer selection
is an aceptable model which is extensively written about.
Dr. D.J. McCready, Dept. of Economics, Wilfrid Laurier Univ.
Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3C5. Fax: (519) 884-0201
e-mail: dmccread at win.waldenu.edu or dmccread at mach1.wlu.ca
On Wed, 13 Sep 1995, Willaim Thurber - PhD Student wrote:
> How about this, a two stage civil trial. The first stage is
> the assessment of fault, same process as it is now. If the jury finds
> for the Pl., a second phase begins. Each side is allowed to
> present the jury with examples in common law of similar situations
> and the damage award, then each side presents a settlement that they think
> is 'fair'. The jury can only choose one of the two settlements. If this
> sounds familiar it is because I have shamelessly stolen the concept from
> the baseball arbitration process, don't know who they stole it from.
More information about the Rushtalk