I did like the "sucks donkey balls". Best description yet.

I think that if you've decided to vote this down, obviously, it's troublesome that it's out for a MEMRAT, because it has a real chance of passing.

But if the standard for reaching a TA is meeting all requirements in the survey, you'd never see a TA. The survey, as far I can tell, helps rank priorities. For us. We're not polling management.

Then our priorities (payrates, payrates, and payrates according to the road show, and most communications we get on the topic) collide with theirs (PS, Sick "abuse", and 23.G.5, according to my notes).

The result, well, everyone gets to judge the result for themselves. Hence the monkey balls comment, which is as valid as any other, and funny besides, but not proof we shouldn't get to decide for ourselves.

The vote will validate the TA, IMO. If it passes, it'll show it would have been wrong to withold it. If it fails, it will show a misread of the group, and/or the negotiating picture. In that case, I believe the group will prove you right.

The risk, once it is TAd, is that it has a chance of passing.

You can certainly tell I am very against it.

I cannot, for the life of me, imagine why we are conceding (concession-ing) so many things during a time of significant profits without quids for us.

I pray this thing is voted down by a landslide.

In a perfect world where both sides have an equal voice to the membership I agree. BUT...

I just paid for several glossy full color charts on multiple pages promoting rates alone, that were sent to the entire DALPA mailing list. And I'm opposed to the TA.

Imagine the exposure if we had equal footing.

That's not the standard that wasn't met Sink r8. The TA didn't meet the direction to the NC given by the MEC. NYC chairman and others have clearly stated that. That's the standard for reaching a TA.

That's the reason it should have never gone to memory rat.

Carl