Originally Posted by
El10
We have reached the same tipping point as national politics in that the louder voice can decree thier position as fact. This is not to say that the louder voice is not correct, just that volume has a higher weight than facts at times.
When ever the next TA is put out either by this MEC, a new MEC or the DPA MEC we will have the same issues. The root cause being able confirm "what" is fact and what is is "speculation". Either side (Pro/Con) can make a claim as fact and repeat it enough times that it is believed to be sound. So how does the quieter voice get heard if the other side has changed the facts? Is it time to have a neutral party fact check each position? Maybe we grade the costing at the amendable date to see how well the company and E&FA did on costing. Or do we count all the "they never will"/"they will" claims and keep a track record of each side?
What do you guys think some options?
I have a suggestion. Do what I did, read the TA.
After I read the TA, I had a few questions. I listened to the analysis of the former negotiators and former MEC chairman. Unfortunately, they confirmed my concerns. Therefore, the vote was no.
I'll follow the same process in the future. I'll read the TA. Find the areas of concern and gain. Weigh these areas of concern against the gains. Then, I will make a decision. No reps, no roadshows, no drama.
The good news is information and thought are being freely shared and are readily available.