In a sense, I don't disagree with you, but everything can't be addressed in a survey or even via input when it comes to a "fix" that will be a concession. Until the membership is actually briefed on 23g5, sick leave, scope etc, there is no way for the reps to know how much of a show stopper they are. Does the company lose credibility and should not be trusted since they only agreed to the 23g5 fix a few years back and now want to change it with deep scheduling ramifications? One only need to look at CDO's to see how polarizing a concession can be.

Not knowing for sure how EXACTLY final direction to "get a TA" went, fault could lie with the NC, or the MEC could have misjudged the show stoppers? (with what I now consider to be credible rumors). If they truly have a concern that it will be voted down by the membership, and I believe if the value is where it is and the rumored "fixes" are what they are, it is a real possibility, maybe rejecting it and finding more palatable fixes might be in order.

I am certainly not saying the path is clear if a MEC rejection takes place, but I hope we are not in a position where any TA that comes back must be passed by the body, especially if there was not a VERY specific consensus on what had to be in the agreement when the MEC sent them back in. (Based on your account of the events)