As I re-read the article ["School bus drivers face contentious labor issues," Feb. 23], I am shocked by the zealously anti-union tone of Russ Zabel.
Why are all the quotes in the article by school-bus drivers attributed to anti-union First Student drivers?
The Beacon Hill News & South District Journal article appears to be driven not only by an obvious anti-union animus but also by a gross misunderstanding of labor relations.
For example, Zabel lends legitimacy to a driver who expresses a fear that a union would be "forced upon" First Student drivers.
If the newspaper would have balanced the clearly prejudiced views of a few drivers (and a management official) with an objective reporting of the situation, readers would have been informed that a union comes to represent workers only in one of two situations: a) where a majority of the workers have signed union authorization cards and recognition by the employer is given; or b) a majority of affected workers vote for a union in a government supervised election.
I am surprised that the Beacon Hill News & South District Journal would publish such an anti-union diatribe.
Sarah Luthens
West Seattle[[In-content Ad]]
