"Despite months of worker concerns, managers waited until early February to take basic precautions against the mold"
Doesn't this indicate that the union was raising concerns and needed to push for action?
Mold is no joke. I knew a guy that died after working in moldy conditions. He was old, and pneumonia.
I got no problem with that goal, it's just a strange article to try to do that with.
it's also worth clarifying that labor notes is _pro labor_, not necessarily _pro union_, and especially not _pro one specific type of union (e.g. industrial vs craft)_. when a labor union fails its members, this is one of the canonical publications covering it
But it certainly makes it a poor article if they're "advocates for a revitalization of the labor movement" beyond the the rank and file union choir who would assume the union took action. You'd think they'd want to appeal to others too.
For the record, I don't so much care what the union did or didn't do, my comment was more about the article itself.
> Although Dugan, Shaffer, and other members say their union stewards on site helped press their concerns to management, they say that local and international IBEW officers who visited the facility scoffed at their concerns. Dugan says a local officer refused to file a grievance on his behalf about the mold in January. One worker requested to stay anonymous out of concern that union officials might withhold his future job placements if he spoke out.
This is a labor focused web site talking about labor issues. Not run by any one particular union, it isn't a union controlled web site that is trying to pump a particular message.
It is an article about labor, where the factory, local union, and national union organization, all had some part to play. So this article is covering all of those issues, not trying to be all 'super pro union'.
Union laborers didn't want to stop working, they wanted to stop breathing in mold.