Rarely have I seen an article with such a disturbing neoliberal bias.
Good on the union, they invested in assets and used the revenues to successfully fight for political progress.
“Some tenants complained about conditions” the article quotes one person, a far cry from the claim of generalised shoddy maintenance. The 6 figure salary is 130k which is nothing in San Diego.
The Union has successfully fought for many things, including, as the article admits, against better funded pro capitalist campaigns funded from out of state. The article conflates all the union fights with the rent revenues, whereas the Union has many other sources of funding. Not all their fights should be about affordable housing.
I hope you posted this here as an example of creative union funding, contributing to affordable housing and improving material conditions of the working class, and successfully fighting for labour rights.
I wish you found an article that did that without the disgusting neoliberal bias.
The far right are enjoying the opportunity to smear unions since they’re the most prominent and functional face of resisting ICE. These folks are actively discussing how immigration efforts can and should be directed politically. Flooding the zone is the tactic being used.
But essentially a small portion of the profit landlords enjoy everyday was used by a union for purposes that benefitted the union, which may or may not have included things like rent control, and lobbying and campaigning on issues that would affect housing.
The intentional hit piece you can expect from a ‘nonpartisan nonprofit’ within the techCEO ecosystem, in this case Google.
Rarely have I seen an article with such a disturbing neoliberal bias.
Good on the union, they invested in assets and used the revenues to successfully fight for political progress.
“Some tenants complained about conditions” the article quotes one person, a far cry from the claim of generalised shoddy maintenance. The 6 figure salary is 130k which is nothing in San Diego.
The Union has successfully fought for many things, including, as the article admits, against better funded pro capitalist campaigns funded from out of state. The article conflates all the union fights with the rent revenues, whereas the Union has many other sources of funding. Not all their fights should be about affordable housing.
I hope you posted this here as an example of creative union funding, contributing to affordable housing and improving material conditions of the working class, and successfully fighting for labour rights.
I wish you found an article that did that without the disgusting neoliberal bias.
The far right are enjoying the opportunity to smear unions since they’re the most prominent and functional face of resisting ICE. These folks are actively discussing how immigration efforts can and should be directed politically. Flooding the zone is the tactic being used.
But essentially a small portion of the profit landlords enjoy everyday was used by a union for purposes that benefitted the union, which may or may not have included things like rent control, and lobbying and campaigning on issues that would affect housing.
The intentional hit piece you can expect from a ‘nonpartisan nonprofit’ within the techCEO ecosystem, in this case Google.