Imagine the mental gymnastics if there are runoffs for both positions... and Justin and Mike both make those runoffs.
I'm not sure anyone can disagree that this has been a vitriolic "they're trash and their policies are trash" campaign. So... does Rich endorse Nick; does Nick endorse Rich? Does Mick endorse Jamaal; does Jamaal endorse Mick? Do any of them endorse anyone?
To me, the answers to these questions would tell you the potential future of the union as a whole. Endorsing each other tells you the campaign was largely smoke-and-mirrors... or the "haves" within the boy's club (aka "union") are absolutely hellbent on maintaining the status quo. Endorsing no one tells you the campaign was largely personal or selfish - which should be a horrible thought for all members. Either way, NATCA leadership has absolutely divided the membership in the course of this campaign. And that divisiveness could have knock-on effects long into the future.
No matter how hard members try to qualify amendments to the union's constitution, those insiders that are able to travel to the Convention will never cast a vote to implement term limits on those members that comprise the NEB. That is why we should use our prerogative to cast our votes for all non-incumbents in EVERY election at EVERY level. Voting for the same thing gets you the same thing.
