Joe Mallahan, a former vice president of "operations strategy" at T-Mobile, has amassed an unusual coalition of support: business and labor.

It's a little weird—not least because during the primary, Big Labor and Big Business attacked Mallahan, paying $50,000 for robo-calls disparaging his lack of political experience and T-Mobile's hostility to unions.

T-Mobile is owned by Deutsche Telekom, a German parent company. Deutsche Telekom's union, TU, recently released a report roundly condemning T-Mobile USA for discouraging union organization:

T-Mobile workers in the US have no union representation and are not allowed to bargain collectively for their working conditions...

The unfairness of this treatment of T-Mobile USA workers seems even more unacceptable given that T-Mobile USA made profit and revenue increases of 6-7% in 2008 and the USA business brings in 25% of the company's total revenue. Moreover, T-Mobile USA employees generated 43% more revenue per employee and cost the company 30% less in personnel costs per employee than in Germany.

"There is hostility by T-Mobile management across America to any union activity," said Al Kogler, an organizing coordinator of the Communications Workers of America. "We won an unfair labor practice charge in Portland, where T-Mobile asked for anti-union surveillance from its employees."

I asked Kogler, who lives in Colorado, why a vice-president at T-Mobile headquarters would attract so much political support from Big Labor.

"That is a complete mystery to me," he answered. "This is me playing fortuneteller without a license—but it's my understanding you have a tunnel project out there. The trades are always supportive of big projects."

So does Kogler suspect local unions are willing to sell out the more progressive candidate in exchange for a single megaproject?

He—wisely—deflected the question.

The irony is that McGinn may have brought this on himself. By being a single-issue candidate in the primaries, on the wrong side for the unions, he may have forced them away.

But why have the unions reversed their position and endorsed Mallahan instead of staying agnostic? Why do they now embrace a man who a) they attacked just a few weeks ago and b) worked at the top echelons of a virulently anti-union business?

What does labor like about Joe Mallahan?

I called 'em up and asked. I'll post their answers later today.