It's contested! The best answer is that one House of Congress, and almost certainly not a single member, would not have standing to sue, that district court decision in House v. Burwell notwithstanding.
Quite literally “we have always been at war with Iran.”
All of this.
Glad you're on my side on at least a few things!
Also, we're not arguing to immiserate anyone! But we need our tax dollars (which will always be scarcer than we'd like) to provide good public services, and public-sector unions too often stand in the way. A bargain of higher wages for real accountability is one I could get behind.
Oh got it. Yes, I'm on board about the need for more progressive taxation. I'm also on board for higher wages for public workers, though they ought to be conditioned on genuine accountability / quality. There's an imbalance on the benefits side that ought to be addressed.
We don't conflate and switch. Both are included in our criticism.
Is your argument that we should not criticize anyone on our own team during a time of authoritarian menace?
If so, I don't share that view -- I think the lack of self-criticism is what helped get us into this mess.
So we wrote a piece about whether public-sector unions create governance problems in blue cities. We think they do. Do you?
Public-sector unions are prodemocratic in some ways and antidemocratic in others. Especially to the extent that they are the latter, they are not above criticism.
This is a provocative piece. Some features of federal sector bargaining might address some of these critiques if ported over to state and local sectors. (E.g., wages are set by boards rather than directly bargained over; law enforcement is prohibited from unionizing).
I'd like Democrats to get their house in order, and I fear they won't do so unless they take seriously their governance problems.
As for arguments about solidarity, I think they are deployed too often on the left to limit or end debate on important matters.
I will add that there is a lack of urgency around education that angers me. I taught middle school in the South Bronx 25 years ago and it was stupid and inhumane what those kids experienced. It is no better today than it was back then. We should be pulling ALL the levers at our disposal to fix that.
Again, there are lots of problems. We focused on one. It's a big one, in my view! Just because there are other problems doesn't mean this one isn't worth addressing.
A point we mention in the piece.
There are lots of problems in the world. This is one, and I think it's a much bigger problem than you do. But you're right that there are others.
I regard the slow-rolling failure of our public schools as a five-alarm fire. If I thought unions were allies in the fight to fix them, I would be enthusiastic about supporting them.
But I observe the opposite, and it frustrates me no end that so much of the left valorizes unions over kids.
Finally, on "regressive labor policies in the South" -- we do not extol them. We extol the successes that their schools have had, and observe that those were possible because of low union power. Schools in CA and NY and MI are languishing -- it's appalling. Yet the unions fight reform.
As for blaming unions, well, I think they are doing exactly what they're set up to do. And I think that is often bad for the public.
I *also* think they are being short-sighted. If they are alienating Dems like Robert and me, the political risk here does not seem remote!
I still don't get it. "Feeding into the animosity on the right" -- maybe! But the right doesn't matter much in the nation's biggest cities. That's an intra-left fight. And we've got to get our own house in order.
I don't understand this criticism? If public-sector unions are a problem for Democrats, we should address it. If they aren't, we shouldn't. What's your view?
B/c it'd be odd to think that they are a problem and that we should do nothing because of concerns about private-sector unions.
Democrats have a public-sector union problem. It’s not a popular thing to say, but continuing to ignore it won’t serve us well.
My latest, together with the excellent @robertgo.bsky.social: www.nytimes.com/2026/02/23/o...
If Democrats want to stay relevant, and to deliver for the public, they cannot wait for unions to change. They need to break more often with their friends. www.nytimes.com/2026/02/23/o...
This may be short-term expedient for Democratic politicians, but it’s a disaster for the party.
Why do Democrats cater so much to public sector unions? A study from @dbroockman.bsky.social, @jkalla.bsky.social, J. Calao and G. Huber sheds some light on the question.
People notice when public services suck! It’s galling that fourth graders in Mississippi and Louisiana (both states with weak unions and no collective bargaining) score better on national assessments than kids in New York and California.
At the same time, unions assiduously resist reforms to improve the quality of the public workforce. It’s way too hard both to hire and to fire public sector workers, and unions prefer it like that.
Yes, we’ve got to pay good wages to attract high-quality public servants. But WAY too much public spending is tied up in pension and health benefits, which far outstrip what people get in the private sector.
Democrats have long accepted inefficiencies as the price of support from public sector unions. Democrats need to strike a new bargain that respects their voices and livelihoods—but puts public services first.
As @profschleich.bsky.social and I previously noted, “It is an extraordinary fact about the 2024 election that the areas that turned most aggressively toward President Trump were cities and states that have long been Democratic bastions.” www.niskanencenter.org/the-state-ca...
This is an uncomfortable conversation to have right now. The biggest threat to America right now is President Trump, not AFSCME.
But it’s precisely *because* of the authoritarian threat that Democratic governors and mayors need to show the public they can deliver.