Giving a team arbitration rights is, IMHO, crutial to making arbitration work. In the PA's decemeber proposal, they gave teams the right to take a player to arbitration, but they SEVERELY limited this right. A player could only be taken to arbitration once in his career, a team could only take 1 player to arbitration in a season, and no more than 2 players to arbitration every 3 years. This is NOT really letting the owners take a player to arbitration, it was more or less a PR gesture, as was most of the players December offer.
Now, the owners latest of limiting the raise amount is ALSO a poor idea. Most arbitration awards make sense in the context of similar players (though improvements to the process could be made, such has having "hockey" people as the arbitrators, as oppsed to "legal" people). The problem with the current system is the CHOICE of who brings a case to arbitration, as it is currently ONLY a player who can do, and they normally only do when they are guaranteed a large raise from it. If you let owners take a player to arbitration, perhaps making it a valid QO, then this inherant unfairness to the system can be removed.
Of course, the players don't WANT to see this happen, but I think it is the inevitable conclusion to the arbitration issue. Players and Owners have unlimited arbitration rights on RFA's. Maybe Baseball style arbitration will be enacted, but I don't even think that needs to be done.