[kick]

The underlying issue is that while the Sanders campaign’s collective bargaining agreement with its staff union sets hourly pay above $15, there are also salaried workers on the team.

Your statement is at minimum misleading, according to the article you linked.

EDIT: Reading it further, it's a terrible article. Yglesias is a hack. No Sanders fan, but this is yellow journalism.

[throwGuardian]

What part of my statement is misleading? Here's the history of Sanders' campaign underpayment: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/labor-fight-roils-be...

[kmlx]

it's "misleading" because it challenges the other users preconceptions on warren :)

[kick]

It doesn't say anything on Warren (who I happen to dislike intensely). It's on Sanders, and it's misleading because the article itself notes that Sanders is trying to make it right, and that it's on a technicality that it happened in the first place.

[throwGuardian]

It's always a technicality, and with enough pressure, any company is likely to "make it right". The point is that Sanders' demagoguery of companies exploiting workers mismatches with his own campaign's actions.

Likewise, Warren can rail on and on about underpaid, "exploited" workers, but her own campaign staff are subject to this, as it is an industry standard way to run campaigns!! They like to ignore free market rates for other companies, but insist on paying free market rates for their campaigns - hypocrites.

What's stunning about Warren is her 180 on just about everything, from when she was an unbiased researcher/academic at Harvard, to her new Avatar as a progressive, socialist Democrat.

1. She argued FOR women to stay at home, instead of the universal child care narrative adopted now [1]

2. She's not for collage debt forgiveness or even for subsidies. She argues for students to work through college, and pay their own way, contrary to her position on the matter now. [2]

3. She's been a steadfast capitalist calling for limited welfare, v.s. the hyper sociologist welfare state she's proposing now

[1]: http://id.lib.harvard.edu/aleph/009448907/catalog

[2]: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1269443

[lonelappde]

Not sure why you are ignoring the fact that Sanders and Warren don't have stockpiled profits or billionaire managers taking home the cash not being paid to staffers.

[throwGuardian]

If they could they would. Who do you think is more powerful, the billionaire, or the politician who asserts his will on the billionaire? Case (s) in point:

1. Amazon/AWS losing the Pentagon cloud deal to Microsoft [1]

2. Amazon driven out of NYC by AOC and co. [2]. And still people think Bezos is the powerful one.

[1]: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/business...

[2]: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.syracuse.com/politics/2019/...

[nec4b]

So they can stomp on people on their way to power as long they don't earn too much money on the way?