Don't worry, no hot take from me. However, the case of the union defending its member at the New York Times who engaged in racist conduct is a compelling study for those who are grappling with what it means to center racial justice in an emerging or existing union.

This debate, like similar cases, is framed as whether the union should have defended the worker from management or not. Centering and prioritizing racial justice in a union involves more fundamental issues to contend with before you get to what is right for the grievance.

I will get to the case at hand at the New York Times but I'll get there through these more fundamental layers.

First, a project to form a new union or transform an existing union towards anti-racism, should hold safe space for members to produce agreements or expectations that they have for each other around racial justice and justice around other marginalized identities.

Note, there's nothing about the boss here. This is about co-workers committing to each other within their union. Shaping their union space to prioritize the most marginalized. It's also about co-creating a vision, values, and practices that *explicitly* centers racial justice.

To help ensure the anti-oppression commitments are honored, you need to lay out the mechanisms by which you'll check in with them. You'll need to lay out how new members get introduced to them. Most importantly for the topic at hand, you need an accountability mechanism.

One thing that continually frustrates me with the labor movement is this sort of exceptionalism where we're exempt from learnings and practices widely accepted in other justice movements. Accountability processes are a must and you don't have to reinvent the wheel.

Black feminists in a wide array of movements have written models, templates, and resources around accountability processes and structuring space that is safe for marginalized folks. There are also groups and individuals available to facilitate your process development.

With racial justice prioritized explicitly in your vision, values, and community agreements (which are enforceable by an accountability mechanism), you have a good platform to build out anti-racism in your union model as a whole.

An accountability process is different than a charges process for folks who may be wondering about that.

When you have a union that is actually centering anti-racism in the demands it makes in bargaining, in its culture, in its member education program, in its resource allocation, and in its leadership you will cut down on the racist conduct like like what's at issue with reporter.

Unfortunately, oppressive conduct from members will still arise. So what do you do? This is where you have to go beyond the defend or not defend frame. You bring out your accountability mechanism.

This is getting long and I'm not going to get into all the details. But your accountability mechanism will seek to restore justice for those impacted, starting w/ most marginalized. In this case, it's Black co-workers of the reporter. You'll take direction from them.

Ultimately, directly impacted co-workers may come to feel they can imagine a safe future with the person who did harm if the co-worker undertakes a series of accountability measures. Or impacted folks may conclude they don't see that future.

Hopefully it's clear that justice and accountability go beyond what the union does with the grievance against the employer. You need a systemic approach that restores justice in the case at hand and advances safety for all marginalized members going forward.

That said, what do you do on the contractual grievance with the boss? Within the accountability process, directly impacted folks or those who they delegate to hold that work will decide the union's position on each step of the grievance.

To be crystal clear: what defense against management's discipline does this member who engaged in antiblack racism at the New York Times deserve? That's for his Black co-workers to decide.

P.S. some argue that a union violates its duty of fair representation (DFR) by not taking up a grievance for a member who has engaged in racist conduct. I disagree. It's only when the union acts in a discriminatory, arbitrary, or bad faith way that the DFR is violated.