No, beacause when I tried to explain only unions in my case Cassie and Wilson totally ruined my case saying that it was not resoltional. So I suggest that you not only talk about unions. I learne dthat the hard way....
Well. I suppose theres a way you could make it resolutional. If you can show that because of the EFCA lots of unions will form. But this would be hard to do and be a stretch since the EFCA isn't actually going to be forming the unions.
No b/c that is not what the resolution is asking for because it clearly states EFCA not unions
ReplyDeleteThe resolution is strictly about the EFCA not unions
ReplyDeleteNo, beacause when I tried to explain only unions in my case Cassie and Wilson totally ruined my case saying that it was not resoltional. So I suggest that you not only talk about unions. I learne dthat the hard way....
ReplyDeletelearned that the hard way...
ReplyDeleteSORRY
Well. I suppose theres a way you could make it resolutional. If you can show that because of the EFCA lots of unions will form. But this would be hard to do and be a stretch since the EFCA isn't actually going to be forming the unions.
ReplyDeleteSo for the most part, it isn't resolutional.
ok..well unions could be argued but as long as you use the EFCA in stonger points ...so in this case no
ReplyDeleteits about the EFCA. not the unions.
ReplyDeleteno, because it has to address the EFCA specificaly.
ReplyDeleteno.the resolution specifically adresses the EFCA so just unions is un resolutional
ReplyDelete