Originally Posted by cactusmike

From a former AWA guy who experienced poor contract language in our first contract:

Don't ever vote on the highlights at a roadshow, vote on the actual language. We lost guaranteed days off per month that disappeared somewhere between the roadshows and the contract publication.

Don't ever believe people who say, "this is a great first contract" it's either a great contract or it isn't. Don't vote for a contract if it doesn't meet your needs.

Be sure you have a JIRC (joint implementation resolution committee) that can iron out the flaws that will pop up after the contract is in place. The committee is made up of union people, preferably the negotiators, and management people that can sign off on changes. This is where that gray language gets fixed and having the negotiators there, with their notes from the original negotiating process is so very valuable when it comes time for the "well, what we meant was...." Statements that will come up. You have to have mnagement there that can make the changes without having to call mommy whenever it comes time for a decision. And the union guys have to have autonomy to make the changes as well. This was never an issue for us, we trusted our guys, and they did a decent job with a flawed product. Our second contract they were even better at it.

Don't just look at money. You'll spend it all anyway, look at the actual quality of life stuff that will impact your lifestyle for a very long time. It's worth voting no to tighten language.

Which brings me to my last point - voting no. If you turn down a TA by a close vote then that is actually a good thing. It tells everyone that you are close but the pilot group wants some changes. It's a lot easier to get another TA done if you turn it down by a narrow margin. It gives both sides the knowledge that they really are not that far apart. If you have some poor language that needs to be tightened, or you have some open areas that were not properly addressed then that can be fixed fairly easily. The big problem with a large rejection is that it demonstrates that the two sides are way far apart and the pilot group was completely out of sync with what was negotiated. This is an issue for both sides. The company sees it as a FU message and the union sees it as a complete communication failure. Not good. Something that will result in a total rejection should never make it to a vote.

One last thing. Negotiators always think they did the absolute best they could and they got the absolute best contract available. This is an ownership thing and it can be blinding. Someone has to be able to take that step back and really analyze what the negotiators did, and make fixes if needed. If a negotiator gets butthurt at criticism then that person needs to be removed immediately. They are too close to the product and you won't get any improvements made.

Good luck to you guys, you deserve it. A contract is a very, very good thing compared to at will work rules. Ask me how I know!