Agreed that none of the options are good. But as a general practice, the Dems can't afford to let a thing like this happen without some sort of public consequence.
Otherwise, they'd be inviting union leaders -- and for that matter the heads of other organizations -- play both sides. And O'Brien would be getting a free ride for all the heavy lifting that Dems (pretty much, Dems only) do for labor.
They're basically saying that union chiefs need to decide "which side are [they] on."
Agreed that none of the options are good. But as a general practice, the Dems can't afford to let a thing like this happen without some sort of public consequence.
Otherwise, they'd be inviting union leaders -- and for that matter the heads of other organizations -- play both sides. And O'Brien would be getting a free ride for all the heavy lifting that Dems (pretty much, Dems only) do for labor.
They're basically saying that union chiefs need to decide "which side are [they] on."