- Criminal Justice Reform
- Health Care
- Quality Education
- Sexual Harassment
- Social Security and Retirement
- Tax and Budget Policy
- Gender Equality
on its issues page [0], or that the NEA has a whole section for Racial & Social Justice [1], or that the CWA has a whole section for Human Rights [2].
I don't think there's any reason that if tech workers all joined the CWA that the CWA couldn't then lobby against encryption backdoors.
[0]: https://aflcio.org/issues
[1]: https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/racial-social-just...
Unions often DO get involved in these things, they make no progress, divide their members and it prevents them actually doing their actual day to day job.
Has the AFL-CIO balanced the national budget yet? No. And wasting time on that has meant less attention has been paid to membership or issues where they could have made some difference.
We saw the same thing with the Amazon unionisation attempts last year: what started as (a broadly supported and popular and achievable ) campaign to get better wages, less terrible conditions and some job security rapidly morphed into making Amazon go carbon neutral, fixing racism in america and end global warming. I would like all those things. But if you want me to put my job on the line our goals need to be achievable, and frankly beneficial to me directly. And the Amazon unionisation fizzled pretty rapidly.
Again, if people want to join campaign groups (EFF etc) then that is their right. But that's just not what a union is for (any more than the EFF should represent me in salary negotiations).
To be clear in the specific case of the AFL-CIO, they are NOT a union (at least not one of workers). So it makes sense for them to campaign on whatever they and their members feel is important.
What you mean, is that you disagree. But you offer no reason or argument. You have just mistaken your own opinions for facts...
More accurately, your first two sentences are more like Union mission statement repetition that doesn't reflect observable reality.
For example, the largest unions in the US can be consistently observed to be political on issues that can't be plausibly connected to the benefit of their members. Unless one were to reason that the interests of their members lies with virtually all partisan political issues. But then we are dealing in a semantics shell-game and not reality.