Gawker Media Employees Vote to Form a Union, and the Bosses Approve
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
I don't really care how they self organize and how they decide to do labor bargaining.
As a reader I care if they can be actual journalists, people who can take time to collect the major facts or aspects of a story and not intentionally by ideology stress one aspect over another or ignore one aspect over another. If you want to have opinions do that in the editorial section -where I'd expect a mix of views, some I agree with some I disagree with.
I don't want their "narrative" or anyone else's.
Granted, there are listicle happy properties (Lifehacker), but Gawker et al. filled a void with it's meta-criticism of news. It's not rare for Gawker to cover topics that are too risky for major outlets. Take for example the sports property, deadspin. I read deadspin and the deadspin writers broach newsworthy topics that would get an ESPN writer not only "banned from the clubhouse" but suspended by HQ in order to appease the team/league. Deadspin provides signal that major outlets would otherwise avoid or over-cook.
Not to over-shill for Gawker, but the commenters are pretty educated and won't let the authors off the hook if the author leaves holes in their argument. I submit that your poop should flow further down the news hill to sites like Vice.com where NYT super-journos call them out for looking at poop[1].
I personally hope unionizing accelerates their decline into insolvency.
Isn't it easier to handle one union that represents your workers than having to deal with all workers one on one?
Why are US companies afraid of unions?
In reality its a mix of the American People's fear for anything 'social' mixed with the corruption that has happened in the past in the US. However, these are both issues that are relatively easy to solve (and its not like we don't have these issues in the government). One could almost think that the people in power do not like to share their positions, especially with someone who is supposed to actually stand-up against the governments mistress (or dominatrix, depending on how you look at it), the corporations.
- The union asks for workers to be paid above market rate. The company, of course, has limited resources. So the company agrees to pay union members more, but at the expense of newly hired workers, who aren't in the union and so don't get a vote. The end result is that, after a few decades of this, pay is based entirely on seniority and no one has a reason to do good work.
- The union asks for more benefits. The company, again, has limited resources. So the company and the union agree to lavish retirement plans, which will only have high costs decades later, after the majority of current workers have retired. When the company goes bankrupt and restructures retirement, the newer workers get screwed, but they weren't working there at the time and so didn't get to vote on it. The management who agreed to the expensive plans is sitting pretty, despite having bankrupted the company, since they are typically older and are now retired too.
- A lousy worker's vote counts just as much as a good one's. On the other hand, a good worker who might replace the lousy worker isn't employed at that company, and so doesn't get a vote. Hence, the union gradually creates protections that make current workers almost impossible to fire, while good workers who might replace them remain out of a job.
(Examples available ad nauseam.)
It's what you'd expect from democracy, really - if you give the vote to everyone in a group and nobody outside, that group will enrich itself at the expense of everyone not currently in it. (This is, I suspect, why most Western countries have such horrible immigration policies.)
If Sweden's found a way to fix these problems while still having unions, that's great, but I don't think Americans have yet.
EDIT: There are American unions, like the Screen Actors Guild, that seem like exceptions to this. However, actors don't work for the same company for 45 years, which you'd expect to make all the above problems much less bad.
And of course employers are saying they cant afford it that is the "line" they have to run in public.
That said, talking to Americans in union jobs often gets you tales of dysfunction. My mother was in a nurse's union for a quarter-century. (She's since gone to business school and taken a non-union job.) Her dinnertime stories were absurd. Representatives constantly squabbled about petty things. They negotiated pay scales based on seniority instead of performance. Ditto for scheduling. Older nurses got to work days, while younger nurses (often still raising kids) were stuck with night shifts. Incompetent nurses were paid the same as proficient ones, and firing was quite rare. The whole situation led to more stress and hostility than seemed worthwhile. So why didn't my mother leave the nurse's union? Because she'd lose her job. The union had negotiated a deal requiring union membership for employment at that hospital.
I hope unions are better elsewhere, but here they often do little more than discourage good workers while protecting bad ones.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_Stat...
WRT "fear," the union system of Sweden is underpinned by substantial government subsidies and wealth re-distribution. Comparing American v. Swedish union sentiments without macro context is pointless. For example, healthcare + retirement benefits are generally in play as part of union negotiations in the US.
From The Economist:
"It would be naive to think that [the Swedish model] can simply be copied elsewhere.
Sweden’s citizens are strikingly committed to social cohesion, and willing
to pay for a large state. A revival of America’s union movement would be likely
to lead to growth-destroying rigidities. Equally, it is hard to see Americans
accepting the taxes that would go with government spending of more than 50% of GDP.
Sweden’s remake of the welfare state is most relevant in Europe, where in the
aftermath of the financial crisis many countries are now struggling with
unsustainable public finances, as Sweden did 20 years ago.[1]"
Labor-management relations in the US seem to be more contentious than in other countries. When the company is on top it uses labor arbitraging to keep the union from having any power at all. When the union gets the upper hand you end up with crazy work rules and benefits, sometimes forcing the company out of business altogether.
From what I can tell there are countries where the unions think about the health of the golden goose, and where the management tries to work with the union instead of breaking it. The US isn't one of them.
That's what employers should pay attention to. It seems like simple stuff that every employer should already have.