Union motives questioned in tower issue

Dear Editor,
I’m curious as to why in your article about climbing deaths in the U.S, you chose to quote and interview the union.
They have a very small market share of this work and of course are going to say derogatory things in order to discredit the people doing the work now, to open the door for them to get more of the market share.
You mentioned NATE in the article and if you research them more, I believe you will find that their main dedication is to promote job safety in the tower industry. I think if you investigated further you would find that the union’s knowledge of tower construction safety doesn’t hold a candle to NATE’s program.
You have to remember that union companies are individual companies the same as open shop companies and it is up to each individual company to enact and enforce their safety programs . not the union’s responsibility.
All of the cellular companies have very strict safety standards that have to be met in order for any company to work for them. This includes each company that works for them having to submit their own documented safety program, and the enforcement of the same before being approved by the carrier to become an “approved contractor” and allowed to do their work.
Tower construction safety is a very serious issue and should not be clouded by a political agenda of an organization just trying to get more work. I own a medium size, open-shop tower company that has an in-house safety coordinator and trainer. I have paid to have him certified as a trainer so he can train and certify all of our employees. This is something that has to be renewed every year.
I take insult to someone saying that because I don’t belong to their organization, our training doesn’t stick.
Mark Gray
Tower company owner