Originally Posted by
Elevation
There's a right to fairness in the way the union handles members' during charges and trials, but there's no duty of fairness in any of the officers' responsibilities. There's also no right to equal treatment in general union business in the members' rights.
I don't think anyone is trying to abuse this today, but what do you all think about adding language like that to stop things from going amiss tomorrow? My idea would be to prevent favoritism. What are the risks of saying we have a duty to treat all dues-paying members fairly? Is there something I'm not considering?
This feels like concern trolling.
You're trying to come up with extreme and unlikely scenarios just to fit a narrative. Again, stewards are not political posts the voting is barely a formality as there is almost always as many steward positions as there are nominations. They have zero sway on union policy and are simply there to assist the membership in union matters. If the ExCo/EBoard is willing to actually vote by majority to remove a Steward its probably for a damn good reason. Why make this any harder than it already is?
Frankly if a majority of the executive members have shady intents and vote accordingly the stewards are the absolute least of your concerns.