Originally Posted by Zoomie

Hi all,

With all the fire and brimstone that's going on with the talk of recalls and TA2 and garbage, I would like to come up with some "in depth" constructive criticism of the TA.
Before 10 comments of "flush the turd" and TA1 is garbage flood the thread, we all know the likelihood of a total "redo" is fairly slim. Even DLs TA from a few years ago with a whole new NC and MEC wasn't a total redo.

Here's why...
1) Whether we get new LEC reps or not, chances are many of the LEC reps won't be recalled before a TA2 is offered for vote.
2) Even if we get a royal flush of LEC reps(about as likely as flushing all the LECs before we see TA2), there's a good chance we still get a lot of political wannabees, so new reps doesn't necessarily mean better. I think there's a good chance they will be more militant towards management, but who knows, right?
3) This TA2 will more than likely be a shell game. Even though TA1 was much less than we collectively think our leverage can deliver, there were "gains" in many areas.
4) I want a detailed accounting on a section by section basis of what was good, and what was bad (definition of a non-sell job) in this TA2 so we know what was given up and what was gained.
5) Based on the NC Zoom calls, they liked to talk about the "gains" but selectively left out 90 percent of the "losses". Let's make a cliff notes for those "gains" and "losses"

This is a crapload of work to be honest, but I think this is a huge area of failure in our Union right now. We need to be able to see any TA2 for what it is, good and bad. We all know it won't all be good, but as long as we know what the bad is, we can weigh the two and see which is better.

I think a bullet point list of each section good/bad/neutral or ?? with TA references would be an amazing place to start.