[CryptoPunk]

>>No matter which way you view it, it's possible to cast suspicion on their presumed impartiality.

Of course, but there are degrees of suspicion. That's why we have standards.

>>Thus, I don't see your original comment as adding anything other than FUD.

Your comment is just trying to delegitimize valid concerns about the corrupting influence of union privileges.

If you want to betray society by playing these manipulative games, I'm not going to dignify the rest of your response.

[eesmith]

You have never mentioned what those standards might be, or how they might be used in this case.

Instead, your comments have implicitly assumed that those standards fit your view of the world.

As I have demonstrated multiple times, you do not have a good understanding of unions and economics.

As for your last line, I can only shrug and say "takes one to know one."

[CryptoPunk]

I don't have to set a standard to make an observation that making TAs financially invested in the success of unions could bias their teaching.

You're imposing unreasonable standards on me to try to shut down debate. It's disingenuous.

>>As I have demonstrated multiple times, you do not have a good understanding of unions and economics.

You support Marxism! That doesn't suggest an empirically grounded understanding of economics.

As for what you've demonstrated, it's just been deflections from my points about the history of unions, and the main tools they utilized to gain leverage. I see no instance of you showing that I don't understand economics or unions.