> It should be dismissed because it shows the old “victories” were simply a happenstance of labor supply and demand. Sure, but not in some exogenous passive wa

> It should be dismissed because it shows the old “victories” were simply a happenstance of labor supply and demand. Sure, but not in some exogenous passive way. Market power distorts heavily, and organizing is essential. > It is exposing the fact that there was not really a victory in the sense of it being codified into law. No, it was caudified into law. But law, especially a moribund poorly-written elgacy codebase like our law, is no substitute for ongoing power. That is a fundamental illiberalism of our current society, like it or not.