It is easier for unions to argue for safe working conditions than it is for individuals who work in non-union shops. Here is BC, where for the most part the government has done a decent job in trying to product us, it is the BC Teachers Union that is fighting for consistent safety protocols for schools. See for example: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/british-columbia/arti...

If there was no teachers union, everything would depend on individual school administrations.

So there may not be an obvious causal link, but what has become clear is that good safety protocols reduce the rate of spread, and that implementing good protocols requires ongoing effort. I have no doubt that, in this situation, being unionized is better than not.

These were all in one state (NY).

One cause was presented: more PPE (presumably demanded by union).

Why turn everything political? Especially when it seems you didn't even read it. Just using the title as a jumping off point to put in political points.

The study, if you read it is mostly based on NY data. It specifically states as much in the limitations:

> this study may not be generalizable outside of the State of New York.

I personally think the study should have published the raw data as well as the aggregate data.

But the study seems to be quite open about it's limitations, listing one particularly limitation which to me is the greatest one if you want to critique the study:

> We are therefore unable to adjust for the possibility that unionized health care workers may transfer residents to hospitals earlier and thereby reduce their facility’s COVID-19 mortality rate.

Unions by definition and function are necessarily political, that doesn’t necessarily mean though it is itself necessarily a problem.

Something having political implications does not inherently make it political. The timing of solar eclipses have had important political implications, that doesn’t mean their political in nature.

Aka, Union vs Non Union means different practices in aggregate and studying the results of those differences is valuable real world data.

Of course most things have a political element.

That doesn't mean they are political.

The study is about New York. The comment is trying to make this a 'red state vs blue state' thing. There's no reasonable basis for such thinking if you actually read the study.