• theonlytruescotsman
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Yes because politically neutral means only going on democrat podcasts.

      • theonlytruescotsman
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Because in the US there isn’t a prounion party, so it’s pointless to just cozy up to one or the other.

    • TopRamenBinLaden
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 hours ago

      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.

      • theonlytruescotsman
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        …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.