I'm sure they do want people to have there own healthcare....just not healthcare as good as what they currently have, because if that happens they lose bargaining power and potential membership.
When I mentioned bias it was to say that they are vested in their own interests and that dictated to them by the Union heads. Like literally they've already framed any opposition to their stance on the issue as "But but BeRnie BRoS" not anything from the official Sander's campaign but some harsh criticism from people online
And if we're talking contradictions then, I guess Trump must be a swell guy looking out for the Bernie campaign so the cream can rise to the top if he tweets about the DNC being shady towards him in one breath then reverts back to calling him a commie in the next.
If you can't see how that would sow doubt as to the sincerity of the culinary union's actions with that twitter post than idk what to yell you Rust.
First, let us establish we have no proof that they want people if worst insurance than them, that is guessing blindly. Now the goal post has moved from they not wanting to help others, to them not wanting others to have plans as good as theirs.
Second, your argument does not make economic sense; they don't lose bargaining power with M4A. It might be the opposite. It would be one less thing they need to negotiate come collective bargaining time. That is the reason other unions have historically back single-payer programs. Second, lose membership. The Union covers the major players in the Strip; if you don't want to be part of the Union, then it is the worker's loss. Positions covered by union contracts generally always pay more; why would someone go to another casino that plays less. Or lose the collective bargaining power that ensures decent wages. Every time a job moves from out of Union protection, the salaries tend to plunge. Valets are a perfect example of this. M4A is not a threat to the Union's existence.
No one mentioned anything about Bernie Bros or came close to throwing all his supporters under the bus; they said they were being harassed by Bernie supporters, which is entirely believable. No matter how much Bernie supporters in here like to handwave it, many Sanders supporters act like outright **** whenever they feel someone is slighting Bernie. There was already a situation in 2008 with a Clinton Obama situation regarding them. In 2016, the Nevada convention turned into a **** show because of ***** *** Sanders supporters. Nevada is a state where politics tend to get very heat. So yeah I think it is fair for them to call out buffoonery.
I brought up the conversations I had to let you know that these feelings of hesitation toward M4A have good faith, organic origins. Some people I talked to don't care because insurance is insurance as long as it is just as good, others want theirs to stay as a hedge, others been on strike and endured some violence to secure it, so they feel attachment to it, others think exemption their plan from banishment, or giving them the option is reasonable. Regular folk doesn't hold these positions because of greed. I would think there is widespread support for M4A type program among the ranks.
If you imply less that good-faith intent, then the "I got mine" argument is kinda a weak. A more believable one would be that the trust/program is probably managed, and salaries are paid out to those managers. So maybe leadership wants to protect those jobs.
Now we comparing them to Trump for a couple of bullet points on a flyer, C'mon famb. First off, your comparison doesn't even work. It would only work if Trump was shading and defending Bernie in the same Tweet.
The Culinary Union has acted in good faith toward Dems for a good minute. On balance, a bullet point does not wipe out them doing things like hosting townhalls. And if Sanders is the nominee, they will probably hit the streets to get him elected president. But god forbid they criticize him now.
You seem to want me to view this as nefarious because it reflects plays poorly on Bernie, yet have not put forward anything close to a convincing argument. But I'm the one that might be biased. So if all you have is guess and assuming the worst of people because they didn't show allegiance to the lord and savior Bernie Sanders, you don't have to tell me anything more.
When solid evidence shows up about bad faith intent, I will be happy to change my stance. But I will admit if they wanted to avoid a fracas, they should have know better.