I think we would all agree that e-board members must respect the confidentiality of members involved in grievances and other issues. What I find odd about this matter is that if an e-board member leaked the information about someone being asked not to negotiate for himself, I didn't hear anything about it. And nobody I know did either. I would suspect most of us didn't know anything about it, until reading the email from our brother.
So, let me get this straight. An e-board member whispered that a certain member (one who's running for president) received a letter asking him to comply with long-established union policies and procedures (not to mention laws). And the response to this privacy infraction was a job-wide email telling everyone that the union had "reprimanded" and "punished" this member! This universally-dispersed email concluded with an endorsement for the member as president. Huh!?!
Is it a coincidence that these events unfolded as ballots arrived in our mailboxes? I hope so. I would hope that the email and subsequent endorsement were borne out of a genuine concern and was not simply a campaign publicity stunt.
I feel bad for the member who wrote the job-wide email. It seems he was told things that weren't exactly true and, because he's a good guy, he justly acted upon what he was told.
Now that the correspondence (including the letter which started it all) is in all the stations, everyone can read that there were never any mentions of punishment or reprimands - just a simple, nicely-worded request. In my book, being kindly asked to stop doing something, without any kind of threat attached, is a far cry from a reprimand or a punishment. But, that's just how I see it. I guess we all look at the world, and how we interact with it, differently.
And that leaves me wondering what this is really all about.
Thanks for letting me have my two-cents worth!