It's one (true) thing to say that American union membership is down - that's a quantifiable, objective proposition. It's another to say that American unions are weak - and contrariwise, that unions are getting stronger. That's a lot more abstract and harder to pin down. 1/
If you'd like an unrolled version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
But here's a concrete version of what it means for a union to be weak, and for it to be getting stronger: the Teamsters election, hereclutch of do-nothing, sellout lifers were ousted from their cushy offices by militant challengers who made specific, meaningful promises. 3/
Harvard is a very, very selective school. Only 3.43% of applicants get in. But that's not the whole story. Writing in @TheGuardian, Tayo Bero says that 43% of the white student body was admitted on criteria other than merit.
If you'd like an unrolled version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
Those 43% are ALDCs: athletes, legacies, dean's interest list (children of major donors) or children (of Harvard faculty). Three quarters of ALDCs do not have the grades to be admitted to Harvard on their own merit. 3/
Back in 2014, a pair of political scientists published a study of 1,779 US "policy issues" over 20 years, concluding that elected officials make policy to benefit the richest ten percent of the country to the exclusion of the needs of everyone else.
If you'd like an unrolled version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
This was true irrespective of whether there was mass pressure from citizen groups. In the USA, politicians make sure that richest ten percent get whatever they want and do nothing for the rest of us. 3/