>Andy, whatever
>other merits he had, did not provide an accurate, nuanced or balanced
>assessment of seiu. He offered one that was quite energetically and
>openly that of a disgruntled former employee.
I figured that was coming.
>Certainly there's many political
>decisions referenced in that email that I personally would oppose.
>But the idea that this is all a big anti-worker conspiracy is nuts.
Where did he say anything about an anti-worker conspiracy? Isn't this an example of the kind of intellectual dishonesty you're complaining about?
>Because of the nature of my own career in the union, I've hopped
>around quite a bit, seen quite a few different locals, a number of
>different nooks and crannies of the union.
You act as if no one else on the list has any inside information and assume that everything we get is from "disgruntled" people like English.