Comment by dofm
14 hours ago
> I think that’s less of a factor of unions existing themselves and more so the public realizing the need for stronger labor laws. Though certainly unions were advocating for stronger labor laws (as they should have been).
> […]
> I wouldn’t think that, because that doesn’t make sense.
Then you don't really know history.
I know history better than you do, generally speaking.
You cherry-picked the wrong comment. Vaccines and vaccine adoption has nothing to do with unions nor are they even remotely comparable.
I literally did not say that vaccine and vaccine adoption has anything to do with unions. Why would you ever think I did? It's an analogy.
(Though as it goes, I suspect vaccine rollout and universal healthcare does, in fact, owe some of its ability to function to the products of the organised labour movement; national, universal healthcare in the UK literally sprang from the first Labour government)
If you can't understand why I am comparing anti-union with anti-vax, then I think you don't really understand the point I am making about history, or about culture.
> I literally did not say that vaccine and vaccine adoption has anything to do with unions. Why would you ever think I did? It's an analogy.
???
> we don't need unions anymore are engaging with the status quo in the same way as people who say we don't need vaccines anymore.
> If you can't understand why I am comparing anti-union with anti-vax, then I think you don't really understand the point I am making about history, or about culture.
If you want to remove vaccines and these analogies that's fine but you're clearly doing something you're claiming you are not.
7 replies →