Originally Posted by georgetg (Post 1175311)

Just for you Scoop:

Eggcorn (as in "Acorn"):
The criteria of how to identify eggcorns have also been clarified. Not every homophone substitution is an eggcorn. The crucial element is that the new form makes sense: for anyone except lexicographers or other people trained in etymology, more sense than the original form in many cases.

The Eggcorn Database


Cheers
George

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1175297)

OOOH! COURT DOCUMENTS! I LOVE COURT DOCUMENTS!

They always cut to the chase and allows you to turn around and say "but, but I thought you said..."

It's almost as much fun as match the criminal with the item they stole!

TIME WASTER | The Smoking Gun

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1175353)

Dalpa puts out a lot more then a document on the contract. On every contract I have been involved with they put out a contract highlights package shortly after signing. Then they put out actual contract language prior to voting. About the same time they put out a extensive often section by section explanation of the contract. Then they put on a series of road shows at the major bases and geographic centers where pilots live. There are also concurrent MEC meetings ongoing where normally the negotiating team will show up for a question and answer. The road shows are also made available as a webcast.
Afer all that 1/3 of the pilot group will complain they did not get any information before voting. Another 1/3 will complain the MEC did a sell job on the TA. The last 1/3 will say contract? Are we in negotiations?
P.S. The MEC had better not bring me any contract for a vote unless they can stand up confidently and sell the contract as the best deal for Delta pilots and their families. If they can't do that then it should not even be released for a vote with one exception. There are situations where putting a bad contract to a vote can be a useful political tool to show pilot resolve. In that case it should simply be put before the pilot group with the understanding its not endorsed by the MEC. That has not happened at Delta yet.

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 1175475)

What's the benefit of having the union put out Pro/Con papers?

They negotiate the deal they think we want. As we discussed above, they usually sell the deal. They wouldn't necessarily be objective in putting out Pro/Con positions. Why ask them to go through some sort of shyzofrenic exercise and be two things at once?

This board is a Pro/Con paper.

Originally Posted by Scoop (Post 1175470)

Sailing,

I agree that DALPA puts out a lot of information and has been getting better at this over the years. :)

One area that has not improved is the lack of a dedicated "Pro and Con" point paper. :confused: I believe DALPA used to do them, then when they stopped a highly motivated Line Pilot stepped in and did it.

I am hoping DALPA will reinstate the Pro and Con point papers as it is the easiest and fastest way for the line Pilot to get a good feel for all the contract issues.

Scoop

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 1175427)

I'll agree to that last as well: I'm often surprised by the weakness in some of the language. For example, was I ever surprised when we tested the NFC in C2K with my very own job!

I suspect it's like any deal you negotiate: the true value of terms isn't always completely apparent until years later. I bought an extended warranty on our minivan. It's going to take a long while to tell if it was a good deal, or not.

So any contract has a bunch of fluff, items that are theoretically a huge improvement, based on the cliffnotes, assuming the economic environment and company finances hold up. But when a true test-to-press occurs, some work as intended, some do not. Some of these are better viewed as a weak insurance policy, than an iron-clad guarantee. I don't think this is a product of who negotiates. I think we have the appropriate professionals in the room. And even a Jerry Maguire would negotiate a bunch of fluff, to see what sticks.

Which is what makes it critically important to:
1) Have simple, clear, strong language in the most essential clauses.
2) Be informed, and involved, and not distracted by noise and/or any selling.
3) Compare the end product to your own initial requirements.
4) Ask questions, but be critical. Lean towards basing your consideration of a particular section on what it says, not an explanation of how it "should work".
5) Accept the fact that some of what you're getting is fluff, and learn to assign a value to that fluff based on the probability it will work out, not a certainty.

Originally Posted by Sink r8 (Post 1175475)

What's the benefit of having the union put out Pro/Con papers?

They negotiate the deal they think we want. As we discussed above, they usually sell the deal. They wouldn't necessarily be objective in putting out Pro/Con positions. Why ask them to go through some sort of shyzofrenic exercise and be two things at once?

This board is a Pro/Con paper.