dagblog - Comments for "Labor Unions 2.0" http://dagblog.com/link/labor-unions-20-22831 Comments for "Labor Unions 2.0" en It was pitched as an argument http://dagblog.com/comment/239767#comment-239767 <a id="comment-239767"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/comment/239713#comment-239713">Lake&#039;s is a good argument to</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>It was pitched as an argument to conservatives, but I didn't read it that way. I see it as a set of suggestions for how unions could become relevant again.</p> </div></div></div> Wed, 21 Jun 2017 20:59:43 +0000 Michael Wolraich comment 239767 at http://dagblog.com Lake's is a good argument to http://dagblog.com/comment/239713#comment-239713 <a id="comment-239713"></a> <p><em>In reply to <a href="http://dagblog.com/link/labor-unions-20-22831">Labor Unions 2.0</a></em></p> <div class="field field-name-comment-body field-type-text-long field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Lake's is a good argument to convince many Republican types. The problem though, is that there is large subset of libertarians who don't like any institutions that become large enough to have real hefty power, whether they are unions, defense depts., governments, corporate conglomerates, etc. (Not to mention the U.N., Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group...)  They always want everything small and local, the don't-tread-on-me-I've-got-a-gun thing. (And we'll hire our own schoolmarm, thank you but no thank you to your union supported one.)</p> <p> </p> </div></div></div> Wed, 21 Jun 2017 02:16:43 +0000 artappraiser comment 239713 at http://dagblog.com