[mbrubeck]

I don't think btilly is bike-shedding here. He's not arguing about whether you're right or wrong about labor unions. He's talking about whether or not your (new) first example actually supports your thesis (part of your thesis being that you have to choose between inoffensive writing and clear/concise writing).

You give two versions of the "labor union" paragraph. One of them does not say whether early union leaders were heroes or not (but might carelessly be read to imply that they aren't). The second states that they definitely were.

The second version is less offensive to people with pro-union biases. But it is more offensive to people with anti-union biases. If you wanted to avoid offending a particular person or group, your rewriting approach would work. But to avoid offending a diverse population you should instead remove any claims (express or implied) about unrelated controversial topics, or simply choose less divisive topics for your examples.