> Anyone telling you to hate your history or your people is grooming you and trying to take advantage of you.

I'm with the rest of your points here but this point seems like an irrelevant, unsubstantiated musing to push an agenda.

Nobody is thinking "wow, a sociologist's opinion about labor in the 1700s makes me hate the thought of unionizing in God's-given-year-of 2025"

When I worked in the grocery industry, it was interesting to see the difference between a non-union company and a unionized one. Part of orientation for the non-union company included a video explaining the dangers of unionizing. For the workers, the unionized company was far better but I'm not entirely sure it wasn't also better for the company. I worked in multiple stores for the non-unionized chain and employee theft was extensive, even with the managers. I never saw that at the union store. Same for caring about their work. One employee screw up can cause tens of thousands in merchandise losses. It's worth noting that the non-unionized chain grew to be one of the largest in the country but now is on the verge of being erased from existence. The unionized chain lives on as part of the Albertsons conglomerate. Also worth noting that the unionized employees generally had negative feelings about the union but most had never worked for a non-unionized grocery.

It is hard and time consuming work so until things become intolerably bad people would rather do something else that they find more enjoyable, like complain on the internet.

I think it's a combination of things not being bad enough to actually motivate change, and the anti-union propoganda/union-busting from the entities in power.