Out of Order

Colleagues,

You’re receiving this because we’ve been in touch around union work or a previous election cycle, and I wanted to reconnect briefly.

I’m Christopher Nazzaro, a Joint Council Member of UAW Local 7902 and a member of the Part-Time Faculty unit at The New School. I am running for Sergeant at Arms (or to retain my Joint Council seat) in the current local election.

You will receive an electronic ballot if you are an eligible member of the local.

Voting takes place online from April 27 through April 30. Please look for your ballot in your email.

I want to be clear at the outset. I am not running a campaign.

There will be no series of emails, no slate-building effort, and no extended platform document. This message is the only one I intend to send. That is partly a matter of respect for your inbox, but also a reflection of how I understand the role I am seeking.

To begin with something basic, most of our meetings still take place on Zoom. That was once a necessity. At this point, it has become a habit.

Remote meetings can increase access, but they also change the texture of deliberation. They make it easier to disengage, harder to read the room, and more difficult to sustain a shared sense of participation and accountability. For a union, that matters.

At the same time, the rules that are meant to structure our meetings are not widely known, consistently applied, or always followed. There have been improvements, but they remain uneven.

When procedure becomes opaque or discretionary, it stops functioning as a shared framework and begins to feel like something that can be invoked or set aside depending on circumstance. It can be used to silence members.

You cannot vote for many of the highest offices of the local, including President, Vice President, Second Vice President, Recording Secretary, Unit Chairs, and others, because these offices have gone uncontested. Positions are filled, but not meaningfully chosen by membership.

This is not simply a question of participation. It raises a more fundamental concern about how leadership is constituted and renewed. And what sort of democracy this local is, to say nothing of the lackluster participation rates that hover around 10% of the local’s membership. Very few of us vote in these elections.

The size of the Joint Council has been reduced through changes to the bylaws that many members may not be fully aware of. The effect is to narrow the number of available positions at a moment when the local is large, active, and in need of broader participation.

We are, in effect, tightening the circle at the wrong time, and in the worst manner.

At the same time, the composition of the local has shifted. With the addition of another graduate student unit, the balance and character of the local are changing.

This is not inherently negative, but it does require attention. The local was once primarily composed of adjuncts and part-time faculty. It is now something more complex. That shift raises questions about representation, priorities, and how different constituencies understand the union’s purpose.

It is also worth reflecting on the role of the United Auto Workers international in the life of the local.

Affiliation brings resources, experience, and a broader institutional framework. At the same time, it can introduce priorities and modes of operation that are not always aligned with the specific conditions of academic labor. As our local grows and changes, it is reasonable to ask how much influence should be exercised from outside the local, and how much should remain with the membership itself.

This is not a call for any immediate change. It is a question about fit, autonomy, and long-term direction. There are other models of academic unionism that operate with different balances between local control and broader affiliation. It is worth considering whether those models might, in some respects, better reflect the needs and character of our membership.

But how can we even know what our members would want when the unelected leadership and the international do not seem to want to consult with them broadly.

The local is, by most accounts, in a strong financial position. And yet there are discussions of increasing dues.

In that context, it is reasonable for members to ask how resources are being used, how decisions are made, and how compensation for leadership roles is determined.

Dues should not be increased to pay for more staff. In fact, they should not be increased at all. We can and should improve at the current rate of dues and savings.

Taken together, these are not isolated issues. They point to a broader concern about how power circulates within the local, how accessible participation is, how transparent decision-making feels, and how accountable leadership remains to the membership.

We often speak, rightly, about solidarity and action. But solidarity is not something that can be declared. It has to be practiced. And action that does not widen participation risks becoming something narrower, coordinated perhaps, but not collective.

If elected, my aim would be straightforward. To apply the rules consistently, to clarify them where needed, and to support a culture that is legible, fair, and participatory.

That is not a dramatic program, and it is not meant to be. It is a commitment to a certain kind of attention and restraint, one that takes the role seriously without trying to expand it beyond what it is.

I’ll leave it there.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. And I value all the work you do in the local and at our universities.

My official election materials are here.

If you are eligible, please vote using the ballot emailed to you by the local, by April 30th (this Thursday).

In solidarity,
Christopher