> There is a pretty tight formal argument that, whether one is for or against unions, public unions are clearly bad. Here is the latest thing I have read on thi

> There is a pretty tight formal argument that, whether one is for or against unions, public unions are clearly bad. Here is the latest thing I have read on this: http://www.amazon.com/Government-against-Itself-Public-Conse.. http://www.amazon.com/Government-against-Itself-Public-Conse.... Destroying public sector unions is one of the major bullet points on the right wing agenda. Posting a book funded by the Manhattan Institute (i.e. Richard Mellon Scaife, Bill Kristol, etc) should have exactly zero power to convince anyone not interested in being a part of that agenda. EDIT: Wait it gets better, the comment I am responding to was actually posted by someone who has themselves been supported by the Manhattan Institute: http://malchow.com/about/ http://malchow.com/about/ I guess that's how this all works isn't it. EDIT 2: The above commented was edited to read "EDIT: Comment below is hysterical and political. This book is a good read. Chuck Reed, former mayor of San Jose, says this about it..." And 30 second Google search reveals: "San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed, in his quest to put a state pension reform measure on next year’s ballot, appears to be buddying up with the Manhattan Institute and possibly its chairman Paul Singer." http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2013/10/24/10_24_13_mayor_reed_vulture_fund_state_pension_reform/ http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2013/10/24/10_24_13_mayor_reed_... I bow to the above poster for illuminating better than I possibly could how the wealthy benefactors of the right wing movement operate on a day to day basis to influence public opinion against labor, right down to comments on HN.