But that’s not really a fair description of these events, unless you contend that unions are so ineffectual and trivial that they are correct lumped in with changes to “on any workplace policy.” Is that what you really think? The decision to unionize is fairly discussed as being of an important on par with whether the break room gets a ping pong table and whether the Employee of the Month gets a parking space in the first row?
Because I think the decision to unionize is one of great and lasting significance, and NOT fairly described as being analogous to “on any workplace policy.”
I strongly suspect that you and I differ dramatically on what constitutes “high quality local journalism.” I can’t know for sure, of course, but I’m going to start from the position that you don’t perceive liberal bias in most journalism.
If that assumption is accurate, then why should I care whether your version of “high quality local journalism,” is sustained? I’d rather see it die on the vine.
And if my assumption is inaccurate – that is, if you do perceive liberal bias in “high quality local journalism,” then. . . why would you imagine that I have any interest in seeing it flourish either?
I believe that’s a fair summary of a union strike, which is of course the purpose of organizing a union: for the employees to arm themselves with that weapon.
Well, yeah, guilty as charged. “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” is a secular dogma, not claiming any “analytical rigor”. To me it says “Here’s what we aspire to, and we don’t have to prove a damned thing!”.
Very few dogma are worth preserving, which makes that one special. Rigor ain’t got shit to do with it. Pretty sure you know that, but you figure that dealing with a dumb ol’ peckerwood, you’ll get away with pulling a slow one.
And “gravitas”! I blush!
“Seldom have I heard a compliment so well phrased or so richly deserved!” Gonna call my ex and tell her, she’ll be sore vexed that she didn’t stick around for the gravitas!
Sorry pally. I don’t accept your authority to either proclaim dogma that is “worth preserving,” or your insights into what you think “we,” should aspire to.
You don’t get to assert any self-evident truths and expect that I’ll accept them, in other words.
hey, here’s another case of someone acting contrary to my perceptions of their own best interests, but not contrary to her own assessment of her best interests:
Hey, you’re the one who’s chosen to emphasize in this thread the supremacy of the boss’s power in any matter of workplace policy, however trivial:
You just wrote a bunch of posts arguing for the absoluteness of the boss’s power over any matter of workplace policy, no matter how trivial, and the necessity for workers to recognize that deferring to the boss’s wishes, no matter how trivial, is what’s “in their best interests”.
Now you’re suddenly arguing for the necessity of making distinctions based on whether the workplace policy in question is “important” and “significant” rather than “trivial”?
Make up your mind, Bricker. Is the key issue here, according to you, the claim that the boss is more justified in objecting to workplace unionization than to, say, employees’ untrimmed nose hair or bad table manners? Or is it the claim that the boss has absolute authority over any workplace policy and workers had better realize that in their own best interests?
Because you don’t get to focus the discussion on the latter issue and then complain that other posters are neglecting the former.
You’ve got a redundant dichotomy in your rhetoric there. All you’re saying, twice over, is that you have no desire to sustain journalism that you perceive as having a liberal bias. The question of whether or not I perceive the same journalism as having a liberal bias is irrelevant to your position.
But you did manage to get across the point that you’re not interested in discussing alternatives to the “Tyrant Boss” model for supporting news organizations that might be affected by what you perceive as a liberal bias. Okay, fine by me. Do you also object to other posters, such as HurricaneDitka and QuickSilver, engaging in such a discussion in your thread?
Not only are you defining some strangers’ “interests” for them, you are defining it as staying in the same exact job at the same exact place under the same exact conditions.
No, it could be “we disagree with you, Boss” about forming a union. We don’t know. Since Ricketts was blackmailing them for trying to exercise their legal rights, a screw you might have been appropriate. But we don’t know. And Ricketts definitely said “Screw you” to the writers.
Now, you seem to acknowledge that workers might have good reasons to want to join a union besides saying screw you to the boss. This was hardly clear. And I see that it is not in their best interests if the boss is threatening them. So, is any resistance to blackmail not in the best interests of those resisting?
In this case, would their best interests have been to roll over?
Liberal bias, real or imagined, is irrelevant. I’m sure most of us would say writers with a conservative bias have just as much right to form a union if they wanted to, and a liberal boss closing a paper because they did so would be just as wrong.
How specific can a company legally be in what it requires that you NOT do on your social media pages? If it’s state dependent, tell us about your state.
I swear there’s a contingent of posters here that wouldn’t mind going back to 1880s or earlier robber baron style of factories and sweatshops and labor laws (if there was any other than the moneybags owner was always right no matter who died )
Well wouldn’t mind until it was them or their loved ones involved anyways
Anyone calling this a loss of “high quality” journalism didn’t read Gothamist regularly. But it was local reporting at a level that even WNYC (our NPR station) usually did not get to. Unfortunately, most people aren’t concerned with such reporting.
Regarding companies and social media, ESPN, the NY Times and Wall Street Journal have all enacted strict social media policies for their employees as a condition of employment. Given the footprint of these companies, it may not be state dependent.
Couldn’t find any info on that, it’s not much of a stretch to assume they were receiving substantially less than unionized workers in the same positions, given that as of 2014:
In right-to-work states at least, I imagine they can be as specific as they desire. If you don’t comply, they can fire you (and you can find a different job).
Of course it is. Collective bargaining. If you’re a single employee, asking for a raise because rising costs make it so you can no longer pay the bills, you have no power. If he says no, you’re shit out of luck. If he fires you for asking, you’re shit out of luck.
On the other hand, if all the employees collectively ask for a raise to keep up with inflation and cost of living, the employer’s only choices are to fire them all, at great detriment to the business given how long it’ll take to find replacements, or negotiate with them.
From the standpoint of most employers, this is a bad thing. From the perspective of the employees, it’s a good and necessary thing. It balances the power dynamic from “do what I say, or let your wife and kids starve” to “let’s sit down and figure out a reasonable compromise, or you don’t have workers anymore.”