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?

 

The same way people who want to make a difference get their voice heard in national politics.
They don't.


The only rational opinions can be those you form yourself after a read of the new TA raw, without DALPA, DPA, Harwood, or Carl Spackler's opinions thrown in.

We as individuals, have to rise above the chatter, and use critical thinking for our own thoughts. What a scary proposition in modern day society! #ThanksObama

 

Read the language and think about how it can be used and interpreted. Critical thinking from the other sides perspective is key. Not a great answer I know but the quieter voice in the case of the TA was heard and vetted. The DALPA roadshow and communication megaphone tried to drown out the opposition. Stay involved and keep evaluating all the information that is put out.

 

Get a bunch of your work friends together, split the cost for an attorney to give you a run down of the changes. Simple.

 

Perfect answer.
If it were allowed... and respected.

 

This is the correct answer.

Read the contract from RA's perspective and look for the spots where you can nail the pilot group while enriching yourself and your Wall St. buddies.

When in doubt, mgmt's side gets the favorable interpretation.


Btw and fwiw....this had always been the position in Carl Spackler's "opinions", both generally and on any single issue re: TA1. If he didn't already have a sig line it would be "Read the contract".

 

Since I doubt you'll see another TA for at least six months, you can compare what the ALPA guys said would happen if the recent TA was turned down, as opposed to what Team No said, and see whose predictions proved more accurate -- then going forward, you might listen to those who were right.

So far, the unofficial spokesperson for Team No (gzsg) is 0 for 2. He said we'd have another TA within 48 hours, and he said the E190s were here to stay.

JMO.

 

What? We're on teams now? And we can name the other team? This ought to be good.

 

I would add, think about the worst case scenario. What is management allowed do?

As an example: Despite claims from the DALPA sales team, there was never ANYTHING in writing in NA15 preventing Sedgwick or any 3d party from administering our sick leave. There wasn't.

"We don't think they'll do that."

"They assured us they wouldn't do that."

Those are red flags that scream "they CAN do that" and "they WILL do that."

 

Who cares.

I'll happily work under our current contract until we throw out the trash and get it right.

Sometimes I forget how to "drama". Then I read your posts and I remember how to drama.

Good job being a drama queen.