You still have one of the worst unionized rates of any first world country so what were the democrats doing when they were in power did they pass any meaningful legislation?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallm...or-union-membership-infographic/#3767ba7533c0
Just above south Korea .
This take seems a little jejune and misses some of the nuances of the American labor situation.
Democrats have had unified control of government - Democratic president, House, and Senate - for 8 of the last 50 years (1977-81, 93-95, and 2009-11). Otherwise, we've had either a Democratic president and a GOP Congress or vice versa. We haven't been in a position to mount a sustained legislative effort to help organized labor.
Also, much of the assault on unions has occurred at the state level. The 1947 Taft-Hartley Act permitted the states to pass "right-to-work" laws, which have significantly weakened union membership and collective bargaining power. However, not every state has passed such laws. Examine the following graph:
All of the strong Democratic states - and even some purple ones with strong Democratic presences - have not passed these restrictive laws and still have higher union membership. Why? The Democratic Party still supports unions, and when we have sustained full control of government, we don't screw them over. The patchwork above shows who actually is the enemy of organized labor.
Then we get into the economic changes that would've causes unions to decline regardless of who held power, as they have in other countries (albeit not to the same extent, I will concede), but that would be straying a bit off-topic. I'd be happy to PM if you want to discuss it.
Man I'd hate to see how upset you'd be if someone actually insulted her.
More like I get irritated with people who won't clarify what they mean despite being asked by multiple people.
Also, how was it self-aggrandizement if I was praising someone else?
