UMW fight is on
This is in response to Craig Clemmens's letter “UMW's silence” regarding the mine workers union. Mr. Clemmens obviously is not a union member, so why is he whining for the UMW to fight for him and save his precious job?
I am a proud, long-standing, card-carrying member of the United Mine Workers of America. Our union fights every day for fair working conditions and benefits for our members. Nonunion coal industry jobs have reaped benefits fought for and earned by the UMW. Yet Mr. Clemmens doesn't stand in solidarity with us. Why doesn't he stand up and fight against what is unjust instead of expecting us to do it for him?
He has no clue what the UMW can accomplish. Last year, thousands of union miners protested in the Midwest over Peabody Energy axing retiree health benefits. We stood proudly in solidarity for months in the courtroom, the boardroom and on the streets fighting for fairness for our members. We won an unprecedented victory.
He called us “totally silent, an emasculated shadow of its former self.” He could not be more wrong. Join in the fight instead of crying for the UMW to protect your job. Every person whose job is in jeopardy because of the proposed Environmental Protection Agency carbon emission rules should join this battle.
This is not a fight just for the UMW; it's a fight for every miner and thousands in support industries that will be affected by new rules meant to destroy the coal industry. We don't back down. The UMW is here to stay.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Majority defied
- Missile defense, not talks
- Positive & healthy ...
- ... Or free-riding fad?
- Thanks for the coverage
- Hiring in Westmoreland II
- Russia, not Rice
- Ferguson & contradictions
- Sticker shock
- Goodell’s ‘pick-six’
- More answers, please