Hey suckers, we put the full text of the #TPP online for you to read.

[1StrongBlackMan]

72. Well ...

Over the course of my employment career, I have sat on negotiating teams (for labor and management) ... I think human nature requires the confidentiality, if there is an agreement to be reached.

On, both sides, the contract terms are batted back and forth in various combinations ... "We need a 5% pay increase and a 2% reduction in, both, the employee share on health insurance and retirement" ... "We need a hold steady on wages and a change in the grievance language" ... "Okay. We'll give you the language change; but absolutely must have 4.5 on the wages" ...

Now, imagine the difficulty in reaching any agreement if that were transparent (before any agreement at the table) ... the management side would balk because their management bosses have said "hold steady on wages", even though they are getting the language change. On the other side, Labor would balk because their membership would flip at not getting the 5% bump in wages, even if they get the 2% reduction on insurance and pension contribution.

All agreements between parties are a mix of wins and give-backs ... with transparency before negotiated agreement, the (public's) focus becomes the give-backs and because of that, the parties can never be seen as doing the give-back ... so no agreement will ever be reached.

With at least set public checkpoints where drafts are shared in their entirety, you could avoid selective manipulation of the leak for the purpose of unfair advantage.

That still would be unworkable, for the above reason. Besides, the public checks would be meaningless, as each give-back comes with a win; and, each win, comes with a give-back ... so whatever in contained at the first check is unlikely to look the same at the second or 15th.