Originally Posted by
Overnitefr8
I'm not talking about whether the LOA is good or bad, but whether the wording is sound proof. We should only have to vote yes or no based upon whether we agree or disagree with LOA. We shouldn't have to vote no just because there are obvious loopholes left open. I realize we can not come up with every way the company can manipulate the contract to their favor, however, in just a couple of days, several people have already come up with poor wording in this LOA. And if it isn't specifically worded in the LOA, then it doesn't have to be done by the company. We have found that out the hard way too many times.
These are all valid points, but in my opinion we shouldn't have to look over every LOA or TA for the loopholes. I know I'm being naive, but shouldn't parties that are bargaining in "good faith" work to avoid ambiguous language, loopholes and generally attempt to honor the intent of negotiated contracts and LOAs?
If the company views negotiating a contract or an LOA as a challenge to see if they can slip a loophole into the language or mask their true intent with a particular section's language then I think it's impossible to trust them at all. How can we call what we're doing negotiating when it seems like all we really do is try to minimize opportunities for the company to exploit whatever language ends up being "final".