Over on "makeupsdeliver.org they have links to the NMA and most supplements via TDU. I noticed the Southern Supplement's change to Article 48 Section 6: Package Drivers Job Selection is different than what was in the proposed (and later ratified) version that was sent out to be voted on. On TDU it said.... (A) Bid Routes: All routes shall be bid. There shall be a minimum of two (2) training unassigned delivery route and a maximum of ten percent (10%) training delivery routes in each package center. The proposal said the same thing only the word "unassigned" had been crossed through to indicate that it was being deleted. To me this is a serious error whether it was a typo or intentional. "Unassigned" was clearly meant to be deleted in the proposal so it should have been applied when ratified. Reinserting the word "unassigned" will allow management to hold out at least two routes from being bid. Otherwise the the language that was voted on should allow the two training routes to be bid with the understanding that the bid drivers have to come off the routes while probational drivers or TCDs are being trained. I'm wondering if this should be brought to the attention of someone involved in writing these things or if the contract books might actually reflect the language that was in the proposals?