If the article only works if you approach it as preaching to the choir ... maybe it does make sense.
But it certainly makes it a poor article if they're "advocates for a revitalization of the labor movement" beyond the the rank and file union choir who would assume the union took action. You'd think they'd want to appeal to others too.
For the record, I don't so much care what the union did or didn't do, my comment was more about the article itself.
right, i'm not taking a side either, just saying your comment showed you lacked the context to understand what you were reading. as you stated and defended. you made a misinterpretation that can only happen if you _don't know the basics what a union is_ — important context for reading a labor publication targeting labor people.
But it certainly makes it a poor article if they're "advocates for a revitalization of the labor movement" beyond the the rank and file union choir who would assume the union took action. You'd think they'd want to appeal to others too.
For the record, I don't so much care what the union did or didn't do, my comment was more about the article itself.