Well, after the hopeful comments issued at the ASA Conference by Phil Smith, communications director of the UMWA, Cecil Roberts reigned his man in. In an April 13 editorial to the Charleston Gazette, he verified that the UMWA was still staunchly behind MTR workers in their Union. Granted, it is counterintuitive to alienate members of your own Union; however, it is more nonsensical to have made such an alliance in the first place…an alliance that is often antithetical to its core members’ interest. Afterall, surface mining in general takes far fewer workers than underground mining. Mechanization, such as that encompassed in the MTR draglines, has always cost mining jobs. Each step in mechanization has brought with it increased efficiency, increased tonnage, increased profits, and decreased employment. The real winners here are apparent. The losers are all too obvious and just as apparent — the residents of these communties and the tarnished legacy of the Union.

Not in the southern coalfields. It is amazing how the media outlets in southern West Virginia (both television and newspapers) are twisting the good news that came out in the Sunday Charleston Gazette about the Union not opposing an eventual ban on MTR. These stories say close to the same thing, but change it to say things like “union backing off on their opposition to MTR.” That insinuates that they were against MTR and are suddenly now rethinking their position. The opposite is true.  Here is just one example from the Williamson Daily News.

Union wavers on mountaintop removal stand

An article in Sunday’s Charleston Gazette headlined, “UMW taking up mountaintop fight? Union won’t oppose a ban, official says.” I read this article with particular interest and enthusiasm. When I was writing my dissertation/book about MTR, I devoted a chapter to the UMWA and its part in the coalfields. I noted the historical role that the UMWA had played in communities, often banding with local residents (miners and non-miners alike) to ensure safe living and working conditions. When the Union formed an unholy alliance with MTR workers, it compromised its traditional role as protector of underground coal miners and their communities. With this new alliance, the Union was forced to protect the interests of both underground miners and surface workers. These two factions often have interests diametrically opposed. Since the 1998 Bragg v. Robertson case, the Union has consistently sided with pro-MTR forces. For the Union to now say that it would not oppose an eventual ban to the practice — and will even talk to coalfield residents fighting MTR – is very significant. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. If you haven’t had the chance to read the article, please check it out: http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200804050411