re: #240 Cineaste

To be precise, you’re misquoting me. I said that union leaderships’ incentives were often misaligned. First of all, Union leaders don’t “vote” against their members. But more importantly, just because your incentives are misaligned does not mean that you will act in concordance with those incentives. They are incentives, not rules.

Ok, seems like the intent of saying that incentives were misaligned is to suggest that the leaderships actions worked in contradiction to the interests of the membership. And yes, obviously the leaders don’t vote.

As for this, your logic is a bit hard for me to follow:

, just because your incentives are misaligned does not mean that you will act in concordance with those incentives.

I assume that your point is that it is possible for the leadership to act in the best interest of the members even if their incentives are “misaligned?”

Ok, I guess that’s true. But certainly you seemed to be suggesting that the leaders were not working in the best interests of the members. Otherwise, I’m really struggling to figure out your point. Was your point that union leaders are “often” so noble that they do what’s in the interest of their membership even when it isn’t in their own (the leadership’s) best interest?