Why do you describe them as pissed off? Simply because they use their rights to battle for better working benefits? This snide characterization of unionized labor undermines all workers' efforts at fair compensation.
Calling someone "pissed off" makes no value judgment about them being right or wrong, it just describes their emotional state.
I would describe the citizens of Flint, MI as "pissed off", and rightly so. Would you say that description is undermining their efforts to right past wrongs?
If I were you I would hesitate to make such hasty accusations.
Eh, maybe, maybe not. Language is powerful. Replaced the "pissed off" descriptor in that sentence with "shafted" or "fucked over" and it dramatically shifts the narrative.
That may be so, but the words used were "pissed off" and not any of the wildly different examples you've provided which dramatically change the narrative.
Even describing the employees' emotional state is unfair to labor, as emotions may not have entered into the decision to protest and emotions are perceived to be less important than cold business logic. Thee workers may need the benefits to survive in their community. When an employer cuts wages or hours or jobs, they say that there are no emotions involved, it's just business.
If I were you I would be more careful with the connotations of the language you choose, being mindful of how it is likely to be perceived.
Anecdata for sure, but it's been a reasonable characterisation of the Unions I've seen. The public sector and construction Unions here are notably corrupt.
I think unions are painted with a very broad stereotype by people who don't know them (including most people on HN, I would guess) and held to different standards than businesses, many of whom are notably corrupt.
