The Washington Post has never been an especially labor-friendly organization. I first learned this in 1977 when potential future housemates announced that the Post was banned in a group house I visited when I moved to Washington DC. The reason: its opposition to a staff organizing campaign.
But since last year when the Jeff Bezos-owed Post refused to endorse a Presidential candidate, and then later announced that the paper’s new north star would be “free markets and personal liberties,” the Post has accelerated its journey down the anti-union rabbit hole — safety or human rights be damned.
Two recent examples illustrate the Post’s road to anti-labor perdition.
Public Employees are Second Class Citizens
The Post’s first and most predictable anti-union screed was a recent editorial supporting Trump’s destruction of the union representing Veterans Administration employees, and then going on to condemn public employee unionism in general. The title of the editorial, “America’s Veterans Deserve Better Care Than Government Unions Provide,” is the first clue that something was amiss in the Post’s analysis: unions don’t provide care for America’s veterans; workers do.
The editorial then promotes the tired right-wing portrayal of public employees — whether federal, state, county or city — as second class citizens who somehow don’t deserve the same rights that other American workers have — like the right to form a union or bargain collectively about their pay, benefits or working conditions. (We have discussed ad nauseum in Confined Space how 8 million public employees in 23 states do not have a right to a safe workplace, although the Post has not tried to justify that deadly injustice — yet.)
Now, one might call me biased. I ran the health and safety program for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees for 16 years. And I saw first-hand the hard, unpleasant and often dangerous work that this nation’s public employees perform to make life livable in this country, as well as the abysmal working conditions and lack of respect that they suffer — unless they’re organized.
So instead of “biased,” I consider myself “informed.”
The Post editorial decries the attempt by Congressional representatives, including a number of Republicans, to use a “discharge petition” to force a vote on the floor of the House — over the objection of House Republican leadership — to overturn Trump’s executive order ending collective bargaining over a million federal employees. Despite the Post’s editorial, the petition was successful in forcing a vote, which passed with the support of several Republicans. (There is unlikely to be any action in the Senate.)
Trump’s executive order cited the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which gives the president power to limit labor negotiations for employees working in national security. The Post thinks that Executive Order was a fine idea because “Does anyone think it’s a good idea for CIA officers to go on strike during a crisis?”
Well, no. Probably not. But, of course, CIA officers have never been allowed to form a union. And no federal employee is allowed to strike — even if they belong to a union. But the Post assumes none of its ignorant readers knows any of that. (Check out the definition of a “red herring.”)
Why shouldn’t public employees have the same rights as other American workers, you may wonder?
According to the Post:
As Roosevelt and other pro-union leaders understood in the 1930s, collective bargaining is carried out against an employer. The government’s employer is the public. Allowing unelected labor union bosses to negotiate against the public’s elected representatives to determine how the government gets run is undemocratic. The founders would never have stomached something so inherently at odds with the interests of the people.
This is especially true when labor unions contribute to helping elect the representatives they then get to negotiate with for compensation. Public-sector unions are active in organizing and supporting campaigns so that when their preferred candidate wins, they can reap the spoils of a favorable contract. When their preferred candidate loses, they act as a barrier to the winner’s agenda.
There is so much wrong with those paragraphs that I don’t have the time here to detail it all. But the bottom line is that the Washington Post’s message to public employees is: Shut up and just swallow what you’re lucky enough to get. Even asking for anything else undemocratic, unconstitutional and corrupt.
The Washington Post’s message to public employees is: Shut up and just swallow what you’re lucky enough to get. Even asking for anything else undemocratic, unconstitutional and corrupt.
In case you’re still not convinced, the Post cherry-picked a decade old story to illustrate their argument that “government unions often shield the worst government employees from accountability.” The story told of how VA management proposed to fire an employee after he allegedly allowed a psychiatric patient to escape through an unlocked door in a locked ward and then covered it up. Instead of being fired, however, an arbitrator allowed the VA employee not only to keep his job, but to receive back pay. The VA appealed the arbitrator’s decision to the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA)
The Post helpfully linked to the FLRA decision to not overturn the arbitrator’s decision — hoping no one would actually click through to read it. If you had taken the time to read the opinion, as I did, you might have gotten a different impression. The decision upholding the arbitrator’s award was written by FLRA Board member Patrick Pizzella, concluding that while it appeared the employee was guilty of misconduct, losing employees was unfortunately not uncommon in the system and neither the union nor VA management had made serious efforts to solve the problems. Finally, the VA made such a piss-poor case that Pizzella refused to overturn the arbitrator’s decision.
And Pizzella was no radical apologist for big labor; he was Assistant Secretary of Labor for Administration during the George W. Bush administration, and following his stint at the FLRA, went on to become Deputy Secretary of Labor during Trump’s first term.
The bottom line is that, like everyone else in society, workers should have due process rights. It may be shocking for those who think public employees are public servants who should behave like servants. But no matter what the charges are, workers who belong to a union have a right to present a defense and there is a well-defined process for adjudicating these issues. Like regular courts, if you don’t follow the process and don’t present a good case, you lose. These are basic civil rights that no worker — public or private sector — should not have to surrender at the plant gate or hospital door.
Unfortunately, pretty much the only workers these days who still have such rights are those represented by unions.
Railroaded
The second example of the Post’s anti-union mania was an editorial that dealt with rail safety — still a somewhat hot (or at least warm) topic after the catastrophic response to a train derailment and chemical spill in East Palestine, Ohio in 2023. The country has also been confronted with (and largely forgotten) rail labor and safety issues during the near-strike in 2022, and a few miles north, the catastrophic derailment and fire that killed 47 people and incinerated the downtown of Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, Canada in 2013.
The theme running through all of these examples is the railroads’ obsession with cutting the number of workers needed to run the railroads.
I’ll try to make a very long story shorter so as not to drag you down the rail safety rabbit-hole I’ve been digging myself into over the past week. Cutting through the details, it’s basically the same old story of greed vs. workers and safety vs. profits, masquerading as a moral tale of inevitable technological progress pitted against feather-bedding union bosses.
So…
Trains ride on steel rails. Heavy trains, weather, vegetation and age can wreak havoc on the rails that trains ride on. And if the rails fail, the train derails, crew and passengers get injured or killed and fires, chemical spills and environmental disasters often follow. Because of these hazards, rail workers– mostly members of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of the Way Workers and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (both affiliates of the Teamsters) routinely inspect the rails.
But, of course, this is the 21st century, not the 19th century. Today we have something called Automated Track Inspection (ATI) technologies that use lasers and cameras mounted onto locomotives and rail cars to inspect track as a train moves across the rail network. ATI has the advantage of being able to measure track performance when subjected to the force and weight of a loaded train. The data is then collected and analyzed, allowing employees to schedule necessary maintenance.
Railroad operators, in their never-ending quest to minimize or eliminate as many human workers as possible, argue that with ATI, we don’t need no stinkin’ expensive, injury-prone workers to inspect the rails anymore. The unions argue that ATI is great, but not sufficient to ensure rail safety. Visual inspections by workers are still needed.
The Post and the railroads (as well as the FRA in its waiver press release) falsely portray the dispute as a black and white either/or issue where the unions are allegedly rejecting any use of ATI.
The rail industry has been petitioning the Federal Railroad Commission for a waiver that would allow them to cut human inspections from once or twice a week to just two times a month, arguing that ATI is sufficient to do the job. Plus, the railroads — which have the most abysmal safety record in the country — are suddenly very, very concerned about the safety of the poor injury-prone rail workers who must go mucking along the tracks looking for problems.
“The issue is safety. It’s a stupid idea,” according to Tony Cardwell, president of the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes, “Every single track inspector we see says there’s going to be more derailments if this happens.” The unions argue that automated inspection technologies cannot identify 17 of 23 key track defects, like identifying broken rails or switches. Human eyes are still needed to see foundation issues like broken rail ties or water damage earlier — as well as the rock underneath the track shifting, vegetation growing into the path of the trains, a crack in the rail or railroad ties rotting out — allowing problems to be fixed before they get serious enough for the technology to flag them. “Track geometry is the end result of a defect, not the cause of a defect.”
The unions also cite a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report on an Amtrak derailment on a freight rail track in Montana in 2023 that killed three passengers. The report described some of the limitations of ATI technology.
The first Trump administration agreed to the railroads’ waiver, the Biden administration reversed the decision, and the current Trump administration last week partially granted the waiver again.
But it is not my main purpose here to go any further down the rabbit hole on the technical safety issues. You can do that yourself if you want. Let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that there are two sides to the story. Reasonable minds may differ, etc., etc.
No, my purpose here is to expose the anti-union bias of the Washington Post.
Prior to the FRA’s decision last week, the Post ran an editorial blasting the “union bosses” for obstructing rail safety progress.
The Biden administration declined to extend the waivers after the union that represents maintenance workers opposed an extension. Naturally they want to maximize the number of dues-paying members slogging around on the tracks. But if these track inspections can be done better with smarter technology, they should be – regardless of union distortions.
Trump is back in power but an industry-wide waiver request is being slow-walked by the FRA, according to the Washington Examiner. Two of the rail unions opposed to the technology are affiliated with the Teamsters, and the Trump administration seems loath to challenge their policy priorities.
A forward-thinking Federal Railroad Administration would be studying how artificial intelligence could be trained with track inspection data to predict where maintenance will be needed. To not even be willing to grant a waiver for already existing and successful automated systems because a handful of union lobbyists are upset is contrary to the technological aspirations of the administration to beat China in the AI race.
At least it was expected that the Biden administration would haplessly defend an outdated regulation at the behest of union bosses. Why would the Trump administration want to follow in its footsteps?
Aside from the inflammatory language about “union distortions” and “union bosses,” look at the sources the Post uses to build its case: First, to justify their arguments, they link to an article in the right-wing National Review. Then they cite the right-wing Washington Examiner. The National Review article was written by Dominic Pino who is now an editorial writer for the Washington Post’s Opinion section. (His most recent Washington Post column argues that Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol is worth every penny — and more — of the $95 million he made last year.)
Is this the best that the (formerly) nationally respected Washington Post can do to make their case: citing two avidly anti-union, anti-regulatory protection conservative mouthpieces? I mean if you want to make an informed argument opposing human rail inspections, fine. But why base your argument on two right-wing outlets that have no expertise in rail safety? It’s not only ignorant, it’s just lazy.
Do your own research, for God’s sake.
In Conclusion
All of this brings me back to the Post’s argument that “The government’s employer is the public. Allowing unelected labor union bosses to negotiate against the public’s elected representatives to determine how the government gets run is undemocratic.”
Well if the Post is really interested in democracy and what the public wants, perhaps they should take a look at what the American people actually believe — even in the conservative state of Utah. Last February, the Republican-controlled legislature in Utah passed a collective bargaining ban that prevented labor unions representing public employees from negotiating on behalf of their members. But last week, facing a possible ballot referendum that had gathered more than twice as many signatures as required, the legislature and Governor Spencer Cox backed down and repealed the law.
Instead of fanaticizing about what the Founding Fathers (or even Franklin Roosevelt) would have thought about public employee unions today, perhaps the Post should take a look at what the American people actually believe — even in the conservative state of Utah.
So, given all of that, why do I drag myself out of bed every morning and head out into the cold to fetch my (real paper) copy of the Washington Post — instead of cancelling my subscription and telling Jeff Bezos to go to hell?
Good question.
I’ll let veteran labor advocate Steve Rosenthal explain it (on Facebook.)
To everyone who cancelled your Wash Post subscription to send a message to Bezos:
And that’s about it. Bottom line: The Washington Post is rapidly becoming the Wall St. Journal — great reporting; Neanderthal editorials. Billionaires will be billionaires.
As the Post‘s slogan reads: “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” But worker democracy also dies in darkness: beneath the dark clouds that the Washington Post’s editorial page is trying to roll over workers’ right to choose their representation and be treated with respect.