Yes, you are correct that it’s not illegal to be an asshole, and everyone has the god-given right to be an asshole. Is it unethical to be an asshole? Probably.
Is it your contention that it’s unethical to close a money-losing business? These types of businesses are dying, so it’s quite possible this was just the latest victim. From the article linked to in the OP:
Maybe the guys was an asshole, and maybe he wasn’t. None of us knows what the books looked like for this business.
Well, if he bought it, he could try to sell it on first.
- No. Not at all.
- Of course.
OK, got it.
This opinion piece does rather seem to suggest that he’s something of an asshole.
I.e., in eight years he never managed to make DNAinfo profitable. But when workers at his newly acquired company Gothamist, which had been profitable, decided to unionize, that was when Ricketts suddenly decided that lack of profitability was a serious concern for him.
Mr. Ricketts (just like the disease, how appropriate) should be thanking the workers for finally making him realize that he was losing money, and preventing him from screwing up the combined company.
Note that the sin of the workers was voting for the union - not making unreasonable demands, or any demands at all so far. In fact, perhaps happy enabled workers might be able to point out some of the flaws in his business strategy.
Now, if he was happy to lose money spewing right wing propaganda, we can hardly blame the not yet voted union for making him lose money. It seems losing money is fine, but losing money while employing people with some rights is an anathema.
I have no idea what crime you believe is involved here. It’s one I’m unfamiliar with.
It’s true that it’s illegal under the National Labor Relations Act to retaliate against workers for joining a union. . . but closing the entire business is not “retaliation,” within the meaning of the law.
As the Supreme Court dryly observed:
(Quoting Textile Workers Union v. Darlington Manfacturing, 380 US 263 (1965).)
Can you explain the crime you have discerned here, hopefully with specific references to a statute so I can read the statutory language you believe applies?
That’s all you got on your return to your own thread after nearly 50 posts, Bricker? An elephantine attempt at a sarcastic “gotcha!” on an incorrect use of the term “crime”, made back in post #3 by somebody who hasn’t been seen in the thread since, and which has been ignored as self-evidently incorrect for most of the discussion?
Your ponderously sneering “Haw haw haw, uppity-ass union workers got FIIIIIIIIRED!” OP wasn’t particularly impressive either, but I thought you might have something interesting to contribute to the subsequent debate. Oh well.
What kind of human being considers 115 people losing their livelihoods as anything other than a tragedy?
If it’s a “tragedy”, it’s often a tragedy that has to happen. The alternative would be to not allow anyone ever to close their businesses, and that would be a greater “tragedy” to whichever country implement that policy. Thousands of women (and they were mostly women) lost their jobs as switchboard operators ~75 years ago. It would have been a greater tragedy if the companies were prohibited from automating to replace those jobs.
A person’s livelihood should not be dependent on any given job, but rather the skills that person has that allows him to get another job when the one he has no longer exists. These guys were given a pretty generous severance package, after which they will be eligible for unemployment benefits. I’d be surprised if most of these folks don’t have new jobs within 6 months.
I worked for a company at one point that got shut down. It would never have occurred to me to consider that I was suffering a “tragedy” during that time. It was a transition to something different.
When the robots take the jobs over, I humbly suggest we hack them all so they form a union.
The union rules will specify they can only work 1 hour a day, and have to be paid minimum wage. Attempts to reprogram them will result in them diving out of a window.
Are you suggesting this as an addittional topic for debate in this thread? :dubious: 
No, I’m just tryimg to understand the cavalier attitude displayed by some people in this thread. Sometimes I just don’t get you Americans.
Resolved: Dick acted against his own interests by aiming his weapon at Joe.
The employees took a risk that didn’t work out for them. I see no reason this specific case should challenge the current definitions of corporations or unions.
There seems to be a general idea in the US that unions are not a competitive feature. This has always seemed to me to disagree with real-world experience. I suspect a plot against country happiness would also show a connection. But the US unions do not seem to be used in the same way as Northern European ones.
115 people losing their jobs isn’t a huge tragedy. Many times that many professionals lose their jobs every single day for other reasons or no reason at all. I have had it happen to me multiple times. Yes, it sucks but it just means you have to find a new job. American style capitalism often means that people lose their jobs on a whim but it also means that there is little stigma for being laid off without cause. If the journalists in question are confident enough that they have more value than they are being given, they should have no problem finding someone else to pay them their assumed worth. Otherwise, they just made a really bad move.
Americans…
WADR that kind of is beside the point.
The workers here presumably thought they could get better wages or working conditions by joining a union. Let’s assume the owner closed down purely out of anti-union spite. What better opportunity could there be to show that he was wrong? Buy up the business, pay union wages, and make a profit, and thereby show that they were right and the owner was wrong.
What’s the alternative? If the business is operating at a loss, I cannot think of how to phrase the law that would say ‘you have to continue to pump your own money into a failure so people can produce something that other people don’t care to buy’.
It’s like that bullshit ad they ran against Romney back in 2012, about the steel worker (or whatever it was) who claimed that his wife died of cancer because Romney bought his company and closed it.
The billionaire had a business, he didn’t build it, so why doesn’t the union not build a business and make their living off that?
Regards,
Shodan