Looks like you need to update your talking points.

James,

Here's the solution to who on the MEC writes the pro/con paper. First, there has to be two authors, one for each side. Second, the author of the pro side needs to be a no voter and the author of the con side needs to be a yes voter.

Denny

It's simple really.

They negotiate an agreement, be it one section or the entire PWA. Then they or someone else if they are too emotionally connected to their work, go over the details and show how it benefits the pilot group and how it does not.

To only show one sided, best case scenarios is dishonest and reeks of used car salesman tactics like we witnessed (and paid for dearly) in the last TA.

That is precisely what they have done with the current sick leave AIP/TA in the NNP. They show only best case examples and have no mention of how these new rules can have very detrimental results i.e. you have a major illness/injury early in your 12 month cycle and then you are required to verify every minor sickness, possibly forever if you get sick often enough.

I 100% expect them to be able to develop a pro/con paper. Being that they are the creators, they know better than anyone else the plusses and minuses of the TA. I believe they lose credibility if they can NOT develop a pro/con paper. I think the majority of the pilot group can see the difference between a pro/con and a sales job.

That last sentence is questionable. It would be nice if we would dispense with this 'sales job' rhetoric. It would seem as though no matter what format the union puts out TA information someone will inevitably call it a sales job. It always happens.

I would like to see a robust pro/con paper. But much more importantly I want to see all NN's published at once and not piecemeal. The trickle of NN's last time only added to people's confusion on sections that changed and heightened the perception that the Union was attempting to justify the deal as they went along.

Union comm needs to be better for sure.

It's not that I don't they are capable of doing it. i just don't think the vocal folks on here will view it as anything other than either a sales job or capitulation to get a quick deal.

I think that people are gun shy. The last TA was certainly pushed in a seemingly subjective or skewed manner to get a yes vote. Hopefully this time they will be more objective. Provide more pro/con. Not lie about OE trip pulls. Not yell in a Mtg at your fellow pilots, etc etc

Puh-leeze. A pro/con paper?

Who ya gonna get to write it? Because it won't be me.

The last time we did a pro/con was for C2K. It turned into a trip to court. Press to test. Get us parked, and these twelve reps won't have anywhere to hide, or anyone else to blame.

I don't need another opinion piece to make my decisions. All I need is a calculator and a sharp pencil.

I think it might be what rube said as an outcome too. But regardless I think your take on the optics of the last TA comm effort are spot on.

It looked horrible and some of the criticism was certainly warranted some was definitely not.

that's just it. Jerry, PD and the others (probably you included) will view anything written by the MEC as either sell job or an admission of capitulation to management. It will be decided on opinion that this or that is a lie or sell job. I think it is a complete waste of time. I'll gladly read them, but I don't expect them to be any kind of panacea. So my question still remains. Who writes the con paper?