Toledo union journal. [volume] (Toledo, Ohio) 1942-current, 1948-02-20
What's
New?
By
EdVard j.
Duck,
Former
Assistant
Director,
National
Auto.Lite
Division

DiUision
Since 1 am of the opinion
that a newspaper column be-
longs not to its author but to
its readers, and is not properly
an instrument for advancing
the personal interests of its
writer, / have purposely re-
Trained from any mention OF
the fact that was candidate
for the craftsmanship in the
recent Auto-Lite unit election.
However, the election is
over, and for the good of the
union few false impressions
must be corrected. There are
no sour grapes on my part
for having lost out in the
race, but / fear for the very
existence of our organization,
if, in the name of politics,
individuals are allowed to
engage in a progr m of
character defamation.
There is a distinct differ
ence between pointing out the
failures and laxities of an
opponent at election time and
resorting to deliberate false
hoods in an attempt to mis-
lead the rank-and-file mem
bership. Character assassina
tion and presentation of fact
are two entirely differen
things.
The fellow who adopts the
holier-than-thou attitude, then
allows his friends-of-th the
moment to engage in the most
vicious type of SANDER imagin-
able, is nothing but hypocrite.
ILLUSTRATION
To illustrate: When people
were told that / would resign
the Craftsmanship within a few
weeks if / were elected; and
when they were told that l
was "such an effective organ
izer" that my talent would be
wasted" in the chairman spot
here in Toledo, two examples
of clever politics were used.
Both statements were deliber
ate attempts to delude the
membership and to defeat me
in the election. Although these
two argum nts could not
really hold up under close ex-
animation, there was nothing
wicked or defamatory about
them.
1t has been said that the
most dangerous man in the
world is the liar. How can the
damage of untrue and libelous
statements be undone? Is the
harm more damaging to an
individual, great though it is,
or to the entire union move
ment? Can the originator of
such vicious stories really have
the welfare of the union at
heart, when he knows that to
destroy the faith in leadership
is to destroy the organization
itself?
Do we give carte blanche
permission at election time
TO those with the wickedest
tongues, to proceed to tear
apart the personal integrity of
someone who dares to oppose
us? l think not.
A campaign based on pro-
gram and fact, a campaign
wherein constructive criticism,
pointed though il may be, and
offensive perhaps to the in
dividual who is guilty of inn
proper union conduct, is hard
ly an unethical campaign.
To show where an opponent
has been derelict i'm his duty
misspent union funds, worked
to the detriment of the mem
bership, failed to advance the
unions political and /or eco
nomic program, or failed to
cooperate with either the
membership or the leadership
OF the organization, cannot be
termed "mud.slinging."
AN OFFER
| offered to debate my op-
ponent on the basis of fact
and program, to discuss the
issues OF the campaign; yet he
ran out on this debate in most
cowardly fashion, evidently
preferring to allow his hench-
men to use this sort of activity.
Perhaps there is no useful
purpose in holding what might
be called a post-mortem. At
least we may expect to hear
this theory advanced. How
ever, the issues are still live
issues, even though they will
not now affect the election.
am still willing and ready
to discuss issues before the
membership, although | do not
feel that time should be taken
from a regular membership
meeting to do so. This dis
cusSion should be arranged. on