[synetic]

Clearly you are not reading what is being written. As stated several times. My objection is your original characterization that the issue of air conditioning was fair because it was a compromise.

Not all compromises are fair. Not all compromises indicate relatively equal bargaining power. Not all compromises....

[antisthenes]

The point is, you don't know whether it was fair either and you have no idea about the relative negotiating powers of the parties.

Maybe the AC portion of the deal translated directly into wage dollars on the negotiating table. Maybe it was a "pick 3 out of 4 deal".

Your posts are just pointless pedantry about an article where we (as the public) have very incomplete information about the preferences and the negotiating powers of the involved parties.

[synetic]

My complaint is that people often times think something is fair because both sides compromised. That thinking is sloppy and incorrect. A deal isn’t fair because it involved compromise. It’s like when people say, “both sides are unhappy with the deal so it means it’s a fair one”. That’s dumb thinking and inaccurate. It might be correct most of the time but not all of the time.

That a compromise was made does not make it fair. The act of compromising in and of itself does not necessarily imply fairness.

I’m not being a pedant. I’m claiming the original reasoning for believing this part of the deal is fair because it involved compromises. I also claim that requiring people to drive all day in hot weather in an air conditionless vehicle is inherently unfair.

[Timshel]

I don't know I can't even begin to call negociating on long term health fair just wtf. But let's call it pedantry ...