cybersteward.net

This past Thursday, as Local 384 candidates, Teamster election officials, ballot handlers and various other interested members gathered at 2910 Hannah in Norristown, the fate of our Local Union became a little clearer, even as new questions arose.

I’ve decided to recap this past election season by listing a few things I consider to be either good or bad signs, as well as some hopes for our Union moving forward.

The Good

• One aspect of this election I found extremely comforting was the split vote turnout. With over 1700 ballots returned, less than 1200 were “straight slate” votes. This comforts me because it shows that more of our members than I’ve ever seen before (and more than Union Hall secretary Barbara Cane could recall as well) had decided to think through their ballots and elect candidates as individuals, rather than simply voting in seven candidates because they ran as a cartel.

  This signals a bit of hope in my mind as we move forward, and while I have concerns about the outcome it provided in this election (which I’ll mention a little later), I have always been a big believer in people running for office on their own merit, and not simply as a pawn of one party or another.

• Another glimmer of hope, though maybe just a small one, comes from the higher turnout in this election (as compared to previous ones). Now, it’s true that 1750 ballots doesn’t come close to a majority of our members (nor does it approach the 60% dream goal I always hope for). But it is an improvement, and I think that it had something to do with the large field of candidates running this year, and the feeling of involvement that may have spread into more corners of more shops as a result.

  As Union members, we should all celebrate the heightened involvement. I know I spoke to several people who felt a charge as they told me they’d been in the Union for X number of years and this was the first time they’d ever returned their ballot. That idea thrills me.

• Yet another high point was the trio of fine independent (and independent-minded) candidates who responded to the Vote 2007 Q&A invitation.

  Given the disparity in funding and a lack of coattails to ride, Tom Nagle, Rob Ramsey and Kathy Duffy were given a bit more exposure, as hundreds of unique visits came to this site and stayed to view their Q&A’s. I was proud to have provided that exposure, as that kind of exposure to information is the core reason for this site’s existence. I was also pleased to be able to get to know three of our finest members in the process. I would’ve trusted any of these three with the reins to our Local Union.

The Bad

• That there weren’t more candidates willing to be profiled in the Vote 2007 Q&A.

  I attempted to invite, either personally or by email, at least one member of each slate, asking each to convey the same invitation to other members of his respective slate. I even used uniform questions, to remove any possible appearance that I might have been altering them to favor or embarrass any of the respondents.

  Early on I was alerted that someone was making suggestions about me having involvement with campaign of the Leadership Slate, which I did not. (Apparently, the services I rendered to the Union in helping with the redesigning and maintenance of the official Union website were taken by someone to mean I was being used as a political tool of the Leadership Slate, which I was not.)

  It’s sad that someone would spread such an idea, but sometimes a person’s own flaws reflect in the way they see others. I regret that any of the people running were swayed from taking part in what would have been an impartially administered education opportunity for all the members who’ve visited this site over the past few weeks.

  (I have, until now, resisted answering those who have asked me why so few candidates responded. I did not disclose any of what I knew about the effort to discourage, so as not to cast aspersions on any candidates while ballots were still able to be cast. And even now, all specifics beyond what I’ve shared here will remain private.)

Hopes for the Future

• That the split slate results of this most recent election will not result in acrimony based in old-slate loyalties (which can be misguided and distracting to running a Union). Neither people who remain from the Leadership Slate nor those entering from the Team Voice Slate should hold on to agendas simply because they were the agendas of the slate with which they served or campaigned. Let the merit of an idea carry it, not allegiances to the slate members who didn’t make it into office.
• That this incoming executive board will look seriously at whether or not there is a need to pay themselves significantly better than any class of regular working members in this Union. Think of all the good things that might be accomplished by reallocating the surplus: more business agents to better serve the really important people (that’s the members), an annual rebate of Union dues paid by Stewards (the ones who do most of the legwork in Union representation, but with precious little reward), a dedicated fund to help out members in dire need (possibly those who are left out of work due to frivolous firings, in the all-too-real event the back pay they’re entitled to doesn’t materialize).

  There are more. These are just basic ideas – but they all have to do with the central purpose of our Union, which is to serve and protect the members relative to their livelihoods.

• That the executive board will take seriously the rights of working UPS members, even those “little” things like Article 7 rights and supervisors working complaints. These violations (as well as many others) have always needed better representation. Too many of us have heard how the Union needs to pick its fights; the protection of any right given in our contract should be a fight worth picking, because the less we pick those fights, the more comfortable management will be picking them from the other side.

That’s all for now, but if you have more analysis, please feel free to add to and/or correct my points by leaving a comment on this article.

Filed under: Teamsters Local 384, elections, unionism