Maybe they couldn’t afford the asking price, not being millionaires. Not that they were given the opportunity.
Of course he may have offered them the properties for a dollar. Maybe.
One feature of this story not getting attention here is that the unionizing workers did not make what were perceived as unreasonable demands for salary etc. - the businesses were closed as a consequence of the unionizing vote (though other issues were involved as well).
Simply being in a union does not make it inevitable that the business will fail, though there’s a history of dumb union moves that had that effect on New York newspapers.
Semi-appropriate theme song for the thread.
Comical, indeed. Can you imagine a bunch of businessmen trying to write for a news publication? I can, and every article would read like this.
Ricketts singlehandedly built all of the roads and bridges connecting his offices and employees, and designed and installed his own worldwide network infrastructure? Never mind butthurt; the poor guy must be sore all over.
I commend you for your consistency and longevity in sticking with the bullshit assertion that Obama was referring to businesses, and not roads and bridges and the internet, when he said “you didn’t build that”.
The RNC and right-wing infotainment complex thanks you for buying in wholly to this particular example of silliness. There’s plenty on the left, too, which I try to avoid, but I probably fall into traps like this sometimes as well – please call me out on it if you see it, just as I’m calling you out on this one.
No, he didn’t. Neither did the Writer’s union. Why can’t the union or the workers make a go of it? They apparently think it should be possible, even paying union scale. For some reason they are reluctant to put their own money at risk, but not at all reluctant to complain that someone else no longer wants to.
Regards,
Shodan
Same reason you don’t buy an airplane when you want to fly somewhere.
So what were the union’s rapacious demands that threatened to wreck these publications’ bottom lines?
Or is your stance that the very act of forming a union is a hostile act on the part of the workers?
It could be Monday morning, or the time change, or maybe just that I haven’t yet had my second cup of coffee, but I’m having a great deal of trouble making sense of this argument. I will assume that the problem is mine, and that there is some key nuance that I am completely missing, which is causing it to appear as manifestly ludicrous as it does.
Just out of curiosity, what if Mr. Billionaire starts a new publication three months from now and hires an entirely new staff? Unlikely in the extreme, I know, but in this hypothetical do you think the former employees would be able to reasonably claim they’d been retaliated against?
I don’t think that’s even necessary. Ricketts just bought these publications earlier this year, so he obviously thought they had some sort of value, either as a moneymaker (doubtful) or as a vanity toy (more likely).
The simple absence of any attempt to sell them, let alone see what demands the union would make to determine whether they were tenable, tells us that this was retaliation in the everyday meaning of the word, whether or not shutting down the entire business is a perfectly legal loophole in the ‘can’t retaliate against employees for being union’ law.
Within the meaning of the NLRA? No.
Just out of curiosity re the thread title, what makes “We’re Joining a Union” a “Screw You Boss” statement?
Notional dialog:
BOSS: Unions are bad. Don’t vote to join a union!
WRITERS: Screw you, boss: we’re joining a union.
OK then, it’s a notion that exists in your head.
Since you’re the ultimate and final arbiter of what goes on in your head, I guess that one’s settled.
Notional dialog:
BOSS: Don’t talk with your mouth full.
WRITERS: Screw you, boss: we’re talking with our mouths full!
BOSS: I’m shutting this company down.
Way back when, I had a buddy who worked at the Wagner brake plant in St. Louis. When the plant was facing a union vote, management sent very strong signals that if the union won, the plant would be closed and all the jobs sent to a non-union plant in the South.
The employees voted against the union. The plant was closed anyway and all the jobs were sent to a non-union plant in the South.
Resolved: employees are damned if they do an damned if they don’t.
Per the NYT article this he lost money on this venture the entire way. Per this 2012 Politico article he thought that maybe at some point he could make it profitable but it also makes it sound like this was as much a vanity project as anything.
From his perspective this was a hobby that he’d indulge himself in if it was fun and did not cost him too much. Not making money after this long was already making it less fun. His toys acting like real people who potentially want a say in how things work? No longer fun at all. New toy!
Being a journalist is a hard gig right now. I do wonder if the journalists could organize themselves to do the hyperlocal thing on their own?
Resolved: All workers should immediately vote to cut their salaries in half to help their owners make more money. And no health benefits. Remove all vacation and sick days, too. Lunches will eaten on the clock using one hand so that productivity never stops. Beds will be placed alongside desks so that time spent going home to their “personal lives” will be minimized. Voluntary donations of the other half of their salaries will be made to the political party/religion/kennel club of the owner’s choice.
I was a daily reader of DNAInfo/Gothamist. Quality journalism, on a whole, it wasn’t, though occasionally they could shine. But it was hyper-local journalism, which is all but gone. And while Mr. Ricketts may have been a Festering Anus supporter (I don’t know), the NYC news sites reflected the hyper-blue nature of NYC (and for the most part ignored red Staten Island, which is what the 4 other boroughs also do).
I don’t know if Gothamist was profitable, and if so, how profitable, before it was picked up by DNAInfo. DNAInfo and DNAInfo/Gothamist combined were not profitable. Had Mr. Ricketts decided to eventually close shop absent the union vote, no one would have blinked. 115 people would still be out of work, but no one reasonably expects a business to bleed money interminably. But doing so immediately following the vote does have a stink to it.
Employees interviewed have stated that there have been no raises in years, and the benefits plan (specifically health insurance) was crap. Certainly, collective bargaining might have given them more clout, but what might they have reasonably expected from a bleeding business? I can understand if Mr. Ricketts was thinking, “I’m losing money and now I have to deal with this?! No f’n way. I’m done.” I’m not making any sort of blanket condemnation of unions, but this is one of those situations where, by choosing to join, the writers effectively shot themselves in the foot. There was no upside to this decision.