NOTE FOR CONTEXT: The following article was written early March after the February election, but before it was known that the election would be rerun.

By now, the news is out: Xaviare Reed will be the new president of our local, and his whole team has won and will be installed on March 15^th. This is good news for our union, but not everyone is happy about it. This election was turbulent, and as expected, complaints abound from the other side that those who won did so at the cost of destroying the unity of our union—but is this really true?

Elections are inherently divisive—otherwise all candidates would run unopposed, supported unanimously by all members. Anyone bold enough to say, “Vote for me,” is also saying, “Don’t vote for my opponent”—to deny that would be a lie, because you only get one vote. No one running for office, who is in his right mind, would tell you to vote for him and his opponent, too. Any candidate claiming the moral high ground because he only says, “Vote for me” and never explicitly utters the words, “Don’t vote for my opponent,” is trying to hide behind technicalities.

To have an election requires that some candidate dares to think that he can do the job better. If this candidate did not find any reasons to be dissatisfied with how the Union was run, he would simply support the current candidate for reelection. On the other hand, if a member who has the experience and capability to run for office finds many reasons to be dissatisfied with how the Union is being run, what should he do? Would he be divisive if he shares those reasons with the membership and runs for office, so that he might win the opportunity to correct problems and steer our Union in a better direction? And how is he to be elected if the membership is not informed of the problems and the need for change? Should he say, “Vote for me,” but not say why we should vote for him?

Of course, sharing the problems, negligence and inadequacies of the current administration will reflect poorly on the current office holders—there is no way around that. But some still cry foul, seeming to think that elections should be limited to mere personality contests: vote for the person you like the most, but never should anyone say anything negative. That’s just silly. If you have nothing whatsoever of a negative nature to say about your opponent, then vote for him (or her). But if you do have substantial concerns with how the current administration has been running things, and you believe that the union is desperately in need of a course correction, then—if you have the capability and the boldness—dare to share your concerns with the voters. If your concerns are right, then choosing the unity of “more of the same” would be inappropriate.

In the course of a “campaign,” such negative things are said by candidates from both sides. The proper response is not to complain about the negativity, but to give a substantive rebuttal—tell the voters why your opponent’s characterization of your record, actions, etc., is incorrect. Inform the voters of the facts and details so that they can make the best decision. Then, let them decide. And whatever their decision, accept it and move on—to not do so, and to keep complaining about “negativity” after the election is over, would be unnecessarily divisive and destructive to the unity of the union.

By Ken Hamrick
Chief Steward, Tour 1