We dehumanize people we see as representing a political opinion we disagree with. I imagine Israelis do this as well. When you see how grotesque it is with Americans, I hope you learn how grotesque it is when you and your countrymen do it as well.
I’ve run successful businesses and I’ve had business failures. While payroll is often a significant part of the cost of any operation, cutting wages would not have saved my failures nor significantly improved my profits of the successes. I was small time, but I would have not opposed a union if my employees wanted one. A business that cannot survive paying fair wages probably cannot survive anyway. Thus guy seems to have had more of a philosophical objection to unions. Some people are like that.
There’s an old saying in the labor movement. “Unions don’t organize workers, bosses organize workers.” I suggest that any place with a boss that’s a big enough dick to close the place when the workers decide to unionize probably needed a union much sooner.
Why - to shut down the place sooner? How does that help?
Regards,
Shodan
Either this was indeed a vanity purchase, or he’s so bad a businessman that he didn’t bother to do basic due diligence on the outfit’s finances before buying it.
No other conclusion seems reasonable.
Do we know anything about what the employees were paid, and how that compared to other, comparable jobs in that industry in that area?
There’s nothing obstructing us from simultaneously seeing a layoff as a business necessity and a tragedy for workers. There is nothing that requires us to pump our fists gloating “in your face, union-loving commies!”
But again, circumstances matter. If I’m reading the story correctly, they got severance packages. So the worker gets a soft landing, and they get to send a message that media outlets aren’t vanity toys to be run as exploitive fiefdoms. What did Ricketts get out of this debacle? Nothing, unless he was trying to lose money and destroy his plaything.
I really do admire the sheer dedication of the ( American ) Waylon Smithers School of Management.
.
What does it matter? It doesn’t appear that they had the chance to even bring up their pay as an issue.
You’re right. I probably should have added something along the lines of:
Call it a tragedy if you really want to, but that seems overly dramatic in this case, and more of an appeal to emotion than anything else. As I also noted, we don’t know whether their compensation was “fair” or not, so I’ll choose not to do so.
So you think people join a union only to say “screw you, boss?” How about government workers unions in democratic states? My friend who is a teacher doesn’t hate the school board - in fact a member got invited to her Christmas party.
Maybe people join unions just to try to balance employer power. And we can understand why employers don’t like that.
I bet Jeff Bezis isn’t sniveling about The WaPo having a union. He’s a mensch. Unlike your hero.
Right. I’m of the firm belief that unions are neither good nor bad. Sometimes they’re necessary, sometimes they’re not. Sometimes they help workers, sometimes they hurt businesses.
What’s consistent, is that anti-union management and conservatives in general will never pass up an opportunity to blame the union as a distraction.
Am I to understand, in this case, that the company was never making money? And that the employees never formally joined a union or made any demands that would prove to be a financial burden? If so, then why is unionization being blamed for anything?
Because rich, powerful people want to make common folk hate unions, so that’s the spin. Facts be damned.
Joe Ricketts chose to close New York’s Gothamist, DNAinfo, and Shanghaiist. It’s not unusual for these types of businesses to close. Especially when they prove to be unprofitable. Just like the Gothamist, DNAinfo, and Shanghaiist have proven to be.
The Village Voice didn’t close because it was incredibly profitable.
If the Writers Guild of America East is so deeply concerned about their new members employment, maybe the WGoAE could offer to buy the Gothamist, DNAinfo, and/or Shanghaiist and re-hire the staff?
Well, if we take it as a given that he closed the business as a response to his employees voting to unionize, then yes, it turns out that their vote was not in their own best interests.
But that’s just kind of an obvious after-the-fact analysis that isn’t really worthy of a Great Debate. Sort of a “he threw that pass and it was intercepted, therefore that pass was not in his best interest.”
What is there to debate about?
It sounds like there was no downside, either. These were shitty jobs, and the employees basically said “we’re going to try to make it better, or we’re going to quit”. They tried to make it better. Boss made them quit anyway, but with four months of severance pay to make finding a new job easier. Win-win, if you ask me.
Yes! And if poor folks don’t like the way a business conducts itself, they should liquidate their holdings in that company! And if they don’t think they are getting a good deal on health care, they should boycott doctors!
Wait, I mean voluntarily boycott doctors. In a way, they already *are *“boycotting” doctors but not so much by choice.
Seems to me, the best response to a neenery-fest like this thread is to casually cite a medium-sized business that went union and ended up prospering for all concerned; workers and owners. Examples must exist.
“Fair wages” =/= “union demands.”
That’s not what I think, and not what I wrote, so . . .
. . . why would you ask?
“Screw you, boss,” exists when the boss opposes the union. But even then, it’s not the ONLY reason to join.
So your attempt at summarizing my argument fails woefully: you use “only,” where I did not and you try to generalize my comments about this instance to all union-joining events. Why did you do that?
Uh huh.
Maybe they were tears of joy?