Post

Conversation

Matthew Yglesias
@mattyglesias
This is about a bill to waive environmental review for infill housing.
Image
Rate proposed Community Notes
Not shown on X • Needs ratings
According to the article screenshot in the post, the unions object to the proposed bill because it "would allow developers to set a minimum wage standard for construction workers ... that could be lower than what union workers currently command." Source: politico.com/news/2025/06/2…
You rated as not helpful
Edit
80.4K
Views
David Watson 🥑
Post your reply

Jonathan Chait
@jonathanchait
The song requirement is the sort of everything-bagel rule that Abundance types should oppose, we should compromise on that and make a deal
3.8K
Tim Barker OSINT
@_TimBarker
Just logically, why would unions be upset about waiving environmental review? In any other context, you'd be arguing that normal working class voters like these don't care about the environment. And indeed, the Politico story makes clear this is about wages. So why lie?
509
drew logan
@DrewFromNJ
Well you do call labor unions “predatory interest groups” so yeah they’re gonna see your kind as an enemy
882
DStoecker-Strauss
@DstoeckerS
i understand why ppl want to protect the environment but why would waiving environmental review for infill housing theoretically suppress wages?
772
Kai
@burnowt
That any yahoo can stop anything by shouting “That’s racist!!!” has crippled making any kind of challenging decision or budget cut in blue states. These kinds of serious charges can’t be taken at face value. There needs to be some kind of burden of proof with the accusation.
194
David R
@RangerDave2001
Either way, I say screw the unions. Between their constant drag on development, efficiency, and innovation and their realignment with the MAGA GOP over cultural issues, they’ve become a net negative for society as a whole and the Dem agenda in particular.
605
Skizzle
@Skizzle07364136
It's all about one thing: Labor wants to use/keepCEQA/Enviro review as a litigation tactic to extract labor concessions. Completely outrageous.
277