The New York Times - A More Equal Pig

On December 28th, 2008, in a New York Times editorial titled The Labor Agenda, the editors had the following to say in regards to unions.

The argument against unions — that they unduly burden employers with unreasonable demands — is one that corporate America makes in good times and bad, so the recession by itself is not an excuse to avoid pushing the [card-check] bill next year. The real issue is whether enhanced unionizing would worsen the recession, and there is no evidence that it would.

There is a strong argument that the slack labor market of a recession actually makes unions all the more important. Without a united front, workers will have even less bargaining power in the recession than they had during the growth years of this decade, when they largely failed to get raises even as productivity and profits soared. If pay continues to lag, it will only prolong the downturn by inhibiting spending.

Today, in a Washington Post piece titled New York Times Co. Threatens to Shutter The Boston Globe, we read that the New York Times considers unions somewhat less important, and an impediment, at least when it comes to the New York Times self interest.

In a striking example of corporate hardball, the New York Times Co. has threatened to shut down one of its journalistic jewels, the Boston Globe, unless the New England paper’s unions agree to sweeping concessions.

Quotes and links to articles lifted from The Corner.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 04/04 at 08:53 AM

  1. Er…

    What’s the issue here, exactly? What makes you think the NYT’s editorial board approves of this move by the New York Times Company? For all you know, the folks who penned that editorial think it’s a travesty.

    I happen to disagree with the December editorial. I think unionism (or more accurately, federal labor law) is a scourge. But it’s odd to label one group of folks as hypocritical for actions undertaken by another group.

    I’m starting to realize that people genuinely do not understand newspapers or the newspaper business.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/04  at  01:10 PM

  2. Tom,

    What makes you think the NYT’s editorial board approves of this move by the New York Times Company?

    You’re correct, the NYT’s editorial board’s opinions may not accurately reflect the New York Times Company’s opinions in regards to unions, but, based on the New York Times Company’s stated position in regards to social responsibility, and their Core Purpose & Values statement, I think my post is a fair and accurate criticism.

    Posted by John Venlet  on  04/04  at  03:42 PM

  3. Well, it’s a fair criticism, then—just not for the reason implied in your initial post.

    Again, don’t get me wrong: I think the NYT’s editorial stance is typical lefty fantasy-land stuff. And this move by the NYT Co. reveals exactly how economic and human reality prevails over that fantasy-land stuff when the chips truly get called in.

    It’s just that the American public really has trouble grasping that journalists, even at big corporate newspapers, really are independent creatures. People who think story decisions and angles get mandated from some smoky executive backroom simply don’t understand how newsrooms actually work.

    I enjoy your work. Best…

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  04/05  at  12:04 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: For Marlboro Smokers

Previous entry: Disturbing Political Trends

<< Back to main