It’s not that the union head should be neutral. The head of a union should be openly and unapologetically pro-union. Going on a podcast and agreeing with someone who is right-wing extremely anti-union, is a very bad and traitorous look for the head of the union.
…besides Sanders who has no power, the green party which has no nonlocal power, and the various even smaller third parties which have even less power, there’s no one people union to talk to.
Eventually you will need to wrestle with the basic fact that as a union leader or member, you’re an enemy of the state and will always be trying to convince anti union people to support you. That’s the point of a union in the first place. If Dems had any chance to be in power, union heads would be cozying up to them.
Strikes suck for everyone, what happens when the strike fails sucks even more regardless of if you pick violence or not, avoiding that is ideal, even if it means talking to people some randos on the internet find distasteful.
It’s not that the union head should be neutral. The head of a union should be openly and unapologetically pro-union. Going on a podcast and agreeing with someone who is right-wing extremely anti-union, is a very bad and traitorous look for the head of the union.
…besides Sanders who has no power, the green party which has no nonlocal power, and the various even smaller third parties which have even less power, there’s no one people union to talk to.
Eventually you will need to wrestle with the basic fact that as a union leader or member, you’re an enemy of the state and will always be trying to convince anti union people to support you. That’s the point of a union in the first place. If Dems had any chance to be in power, union heads would be cozying up to them.
Strikes suck for everyone, what happens when the strike fails sucks even more regardless of if you pick violence or not, avoiding that is ideal, even if it means talking to people some randos on the internet find distasteful.