Photo By MEIC
Guest Editorial by former Butte Legislator, Josh Peck.
Everybody gets it wrong sometimes. This time, unfortunately, organized labor got it wrong.
Let me say this clearly before anyone twists it. I am pro-union. I have spent years supporting unions, studying labor history, standing with workers, and understanding exactly why unions matter. Unions built the middle class. Unions fought for safety rules, fair pay, decent benefits, health protections, training standards, and dignity on the job. In a place like Butte, that history is not abstract. It is sacred.
That is exactly why this moment feels so wrong.
What we are being told right now is that if we ask questions about data centers, if we ask about water, if we ask about electric rates, if we ask about noise, wildlife, land use, public process, long-term costs, and whether regular Montanans will get stuck holding the bag, then somehow we are anti-worker or anti-union. That is nonsense.
Even Montana press is now reporting that AFL-CIO pressure has reached party messaging around data centers. Daily Montanan’s April 13 debate coverage quoted Russ Cleveland saying he was warned to be careful about talking negatively about data centers because AFL-CIO had asked for that. Montana Standard had already reported in February that labor leadership was urging Montana Democrats to back off negative messaging on the issue. 
That is not solidarity. That is message control.
And the message they want us to swallow is simple: jobs, jobs, jobs.
Montanans have heard that tune before.
Yes, data centers create construction work. Nobody is denying that. Brookings says the standard model delivers short-term construction jobs. A USC workforce analysis says the typical large build runs around two years. But that same research also shows the permanent workforce at highly automated hyperscale facilities is tiny compared with the build phase. Good Jobs First warns that many subsidy deals require very few permanent jobs, and some require none at all, while construction labor can be filled by traveling crews rather than guaranteed local hires. 
So let us stop pretending this is some giant long-term employment engine for Montana communities. A lot of these projects look more like a short burst of work followed by a heavily automated facility with a relatively small permanent staff. 
That does not make the construction jobs fake. It means they are not the whole story.
And the other side of the story is huge.
Montana Free Press has reported that Butte is ground zero in this debate for a reason. We already know these projects can require enormous amounts of electricity. We know water use details have been hard to pin down. We know there is a tradeoff between water cooling and electric demand. We know NorthWestern has signed letters of intent that, by one Montana Free Press accounting, could total 1,400 megawatts by 2030, more than double what its existing customers require on a typical day. We know Earthjustice and other groups are fighting the PSC because key data center information has been kept from public view. 
That alone should be enough to justify a pause.
Not a ban. Not a tantrum. Not an anti-union crusade.
A pause.
A serious, adult, Montana-style pause to ask basic questions.
What will this do to electric rates?
What will this do to water?
What will this do to wildlife and habitat?
What will this do to neighboring homes and neighborhoods?
What will this do to noise levels?
What will this do to local infrastructure?
What guarantees exist that Montana ratepayers will not subsidize private corporate expansion?
What percentage of the labor will actually be local?
What percentage of the permanent jobs will be union?
What public benefits are guaranteed in writing, not just promised in a press conference?
These are not extremist questions. These are the exact kind of questions unions are supposed to ask when something big, risky, and potentially harmful is being pushed through too fast.
Because the union tradition at its best is not “trust the corporation.”
It is not “take the deal and ask later.”
It is not “sit down and shut up because leadership already decided.”
The union tradition at its best is: slow down, get it in writing, protect the worker, protect the public, make sure the job is done right, and make sure regular people are not the ones sacrificed so somebody else can cash out.
That is why this feels like such a slap in the face.
We are not talking about a local machine shop. We are not talking about a small industrial project with known impacts. We are talking about a fast-moving, high-power, high-water, highly secretive industry that across the country has triggered fights over utility rates, freshwater, land use, air quality, and transparency. DOE’s Berkeley Lab says data center electricity demand could rise to as much as 12% of all U.S. electricity by 2028. EESI says large data centers can use up to 5 million gallons of water per day. WRI says communities are often left with limited information about long-term impacts and benefits. 
If that does not call for caution, what does?
And here is the part that really gets under my skin.
I actually do support data centers in the United States. I support keeping critical digital infrastructure here rather than handing it off to regimes and regions with fewer rules and less accountability. I understand the argument that colder climates can be more efficient. I understand why people see economic potential.
But supporting the concept is not the same thing as giving every project a blank check.
A corporation willing to build wherever cost is lowest is not your friend just because it says “union labor” at the groundbreaking. The same market logic that chases cheap land, cheap power, tax breaks, and light regulation is not magically transformed into labor solidarity because someone wore a hard hat at a press conference. If anything, that is exactly when unions should be most skeptical.
And that is why labor leadership should be standing with communities demanding answers, not attacking people for asking the questions.
Want this done right? Then prove it.
Guarantee local labor in writing.
Guarantee ratepayer protections in writing.
Guarantee water protections in writing.
Guarantee disclosure in writing.
Guarantee environmental review in writing.
Guarantee permanent community benefit in writing.
Do not tell Montanans to take it on faith.
This is Montana. People hunt here. Fish here. Raise kids here. Pay utility bills here. Live next to the land being discussed here. They have every right to know what will be built, what it will consume, what it will sound like, what it will cost, and who really benefits.
That is not anti-union.
That is not anti-worker.
That is not anti-progress.
That is exactly what doing it right looks like.
So no, asking for a pause is not opposing labor. It is honoring the best instincts labor was built on. Measure twice. Cut once. Protect people first. Do not let corporate greed wrap itself in a union banner and call that justice.
Everybody gets it wrong sometimes.
This time, labor leadership got it wrong.
And if unions want to be true to the legacy they inherited from places like Butte, then they should stop trying to rush Montanans past their questions and start helping us demand real answers.
The most union thing in the world is not blind loyalty to a project. It is insisting the project be safe, fair, transparent, and worth the cost.
Short-term construction jobs are not a moral blank check for long-term public risk. 
If the deal is so good, it should survive public scrutiny.
Montanans are not saying no. They are saying prove it.
Labor should be helping ask the hard questions, not helping shut them down
Also see WTF406.com previous post on data centers. https://wtf406.com/2025/08/here-we-go-again/