There is clearly no anti-union bias in this reporting. And it is completely understandable that Mr. Smith did not question the IATSE about what options exist to an employer within union contracts for addressing these issues or what types of steps other union employers have taken in similar circumstances. If he had, he would have found that using that or other words considered hate speech are an unequivocal reason to file a DND (Do Not Dispatch) by that employer for that employee. I believe that 3 DNDs (from three separate employers can get you delisted, but I'm not totes sure on that. Point is, it's bullshit to mention over and over again that this is a union employee, as if the union is somehow involved in harboring and shielding racism, but fail to explain that the union in question also has very clear policies on discrimination and hate speech with robust consequences . . . if they are invoked.

But hey, please, keep making it look like the IATSE - a union that does dispatch by qualification date (your race, gender, ethnicity, religion are all irrelevant . . . not even your charming personality will get you gigs any faster or slower) and eliminates many of the intersecting pressures that economically disadvantage marginalized groups - is really the bad guy lurking in the background here.