Originally Posted by Grumble

But Dems are pro union!!!! Right? Right!?!?

Originally Posted by nene

Both parties have same prime directives:

1 Get reelected
2. Raise money
3. Increase power/ influence
4. Raise money

Union concerns need to fill the prime directives first before consideration.

Originally Posted by hummingbear

Very few would claim republicans to be the “pro-union party”. Actually, a “blue collar” worker today is about half as likely to be in a labor union than he was 40 years ago, so (my opinion) even your average Joe is more likely to see labor unions as greedy & pampered- essentially wanting untenable pay/benefits packages (where have we heard that before?) for doing the same work he has to do for far less. Ironically, expanding labor unions would mean more opportunities for him (rising tide), but I think fewer Americans see it that way today than in the past, which helps to explain how Rs have been able to increase their appeal to middle/low income Americans while outwardly supporting pro-corporate & pro-wealthy economic policies.

Originally Posted by AntiCompanyMan

A senator is unilaterally undermining military readiness because he is unable to get his way. ie throwing a temper tantrum. And the only reason military policy changed is because Roe was overturned. All the policy does is ensure members of the military/their family have access to reproductive healthcare regardless of what state they happen to be stationed in. This administration didn't change the status quo; the Supreme Court did. It's not as if this came out of left field.

Repubs believe denying our military members access to healthcare is a future campaign winner. We shall see.

Originally Posted by hummingbear

As pro-union as it gets, unfortunately. Both parties have leaned heavily into social advocacy over actual politics over the past decade, but the Rs still maintain a healthy pro-business tilt.

Very few would claim republicans to be the “pro-union party”. Actually, a “blue collar” worker today is about half as likely to be in a labor union than he was 40 years ago, so (my opinion) even your average Joe is more likely to see labor unions as greedy & pampered- essentially wanting untenable pay/benefits packages (where have we heard that before?) for doing the same work he has to do for far less. Ironically, expanding labor unions would mean more opportunities for him (rising tide), but I think fewer Americans see it that way today than in the past, which helps to explain how Rs have been able to increase their appeal to middle/low income Americans while outwardly supporting pro-corporate & pro-wealthy economic policies.

Originally Posted by Grumble

It’s funny, that as pro business and pro Wall Street, pro hedge fund, pro millionaire class etc as R’s are always accused of being… the financial/business/tech cities (Like SFO, NYC and ORD) are all so deeply blue. Almost like the reality doesn’t fit the narrative.

Originally Posted by rickair7777

Oddly enough, Americans tend to think the union decline is bad.

Originally Posted by hummingbear

Yes, but only by a relatively slim majority of 58%. The article doesn’t compare union support today against any time in the past (which is the original point I was making) but I’d be willing to bet it’s on the decline as union membership becomes less common.

​​​Also, the responses are strongly divided along partisan lines with a majority of republicans believing the decline of unions is actually good for the working class (vs 23% of Ds). Even among lower income republicans, 44% think the trend is good for the working class, which, if you think about it, is a pretty big number. That kind of underscores my point about a large contingent of working Americans who explicitly support policies that benefit the wealthy over themselves. The biggest fans of labor unions? You guessed it- rich, white, educated liberals.

Some other interesting trends in the demographic breakdowns of this study, thanks for posting.

Originally Posted by Grumble

If you were around for the 85 strike, then I’m assuming you’re either a SCAB or a 570 (hired to scab). If you’re an OG striker than hats off to you.

You VOTED AWAY your pension 20 years ago. Plenty of pilots managed to amass 7-8 figures in their 401k. If your argument is you can’t afford to retire because of all those things, two more years isn’t going to solve that unless your plan is to just die in the seat before it becomes an issue.

Originally Posted by Grumble

If you were around for the 85 strike, then I’m assuming you’re either a SCAB or a 570 (hired to scab). If you’re an OG striker than hats off to you.

You VOTED AWAY your pension 20 years ago. Plenty of pilots managed to amass 7-8 figures in their 401k. If your argument is you can’t afford to retire because of all those things, two more years isn’t going to solve that unless your plan is to just die in the seat before it becomes an issue.