Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
I don’t see how that would disagree with anything I said as it’s essentially saying the same thing.
|
It’s close, but I think there is a distinction when you start saying they should be pro this industry and pro that industry compared with being a little more vague and just saying they should be pro investments that lead to job creation. That way they are better positioned to more credibly challenge specific industries engaging in labour practices that they don’t agree with.
Otherwise it becomes a slippery slope and also inevitably creates a conflict of interest when certain industries that are more anti-union than others by actively investing or heavily engaging in Union busting. We’ve already seen this happen so why not try and avoid having history repeat itself.
I think you’ve clarified your intent though and we clearly agree on the principles of what the message should be. I just thought your initial delivery was a little off for the reasons explained above.