SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the Retaliation?-or-Post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc? dept.
DNAinfo and Gothamist Are Shut Down After Vote to Unionize
A week ago, reporters and editors in the combined newsroom of DNAinfo and Gothamist, two of New York City's leading digital purveyors of local news, celebrated victory in their vote to join a union.
On Thursday, they lost their jobs, as Joe Ricketts, the billionaire founder of TD Ameritrade who owned the sites, shut them down.
At 5 p.m., a post went up on the sites from Mr. Ricketts announcing the decision. He praised them for reporting "tens of thousands of stories that have informed, impacted and inspired millions of people." But he added, "DNAinfo is, at the end of the day, a business, and businesses need to be economically successful if they are to endure."
[...] in the financially daunting era of digital journalism, there has been no tougher nut to crack than making local news profitable, a lesson Mr. Ricketts, who lost money every month of DNAinfo's existence, is just the latest to learn. In New York City, the nation's biggest media market, established organizations such as The Village Voice, The Wall Street Journal and The Daily News have slashed staff or withdrawn from street-level reporting. The Voice stopped publishing its print edition in September.
What about The Daily Planet and Gotham Globe?
Gothamist's NY Writing Staff Votes to Unionize; Owner Shutters All *ist Sites
Deadspin reports:
Joe Ricketts, TD Ameritrade founder, billionaire, and father of Chicago Cubs chairman Tom Ricketts, shut down the local news network of DNAinfo and Gothamist sites today, a week after the writers voted to unionize.
[...] With the sites' articles functionally locked, the reported 115 newly jobless writers now have no clips [to which they can refer potential employers] as they search for work.
Deadspin has scathing comments about Ricketts's explanation for his action.
The Los Angeles Daily News reports:
Angelenos hoping to read the latest local reporting from LAist.com [on November 2] were instead greeted by a letter from the news site's CEO, announcing he had shuttered the parent media company and all of its local news sites.
[...] [Ricketts bought news company DNAinfo in 2010 and, in March 2017, DNAinfo] purchased Gothamist, which ran news sites in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, and Washington D.C.
[...] Julia Wick, editor-in-chief at LAist, [...] said she and her Los Angeles team supported the New York staff's decision to unionize. Originally, she said, all five Gothamist sites planned to join the union, but the Chicago newsroom dropped out, ending the collective effort.
(Score: 0, Troll) by jmorris on Tuesday November 07 2017, @03:28AM (11 children)
Seriously, fuck em. Immoral thieves the lot of em. A union vote is nothing less than workers deciding to seize the means of production with the complicity of the government backing the theft. And since it is illegal to fire the organizers, illegal to fire anybody after the union vote occurs without the permission of the new semi-owners, but the SCOTUS ruled you can still shut the while business down, that is the only viable option. If every business owner promised they would do exactly that, and then DID exactly that while in every possible case opening as close to exactly the same operation in a Right to Work State under as close a name as the lawyers will let ya get away with, the union movement could finally be banished to government workers only. Trump should then administer the final blow and end those in the FedGov while every Red State follow suit.
Unions are a bad idea based on a defective premise. Workers exchange value for value, if they do not like the value received for the labor expended GTFO. Employers certainly have no problem deciding a worker isn't worth their pay and right sizing yer ass, both sides have to be willing to walk in any negotiation for a fair price to be generated. But workers do not ever become part owners only by virtue of working somewhere. It isn't yours, even if you have been there thirty years. If you DO want to be a partner you have to be willing to assume your share of the risk if you want to share the rewards.
Do you really want to see a world where every job posting has a price to "buy in" your share of the business sufficient to average out in profits what you would normally be paid? And you would know if the business tanks you LOSE the buy in cash along with the other owners. So you would have to perform due diligence like you were going into business with the current people there when deciding where to work, because that is exactly what you would be doing. And oh yea, you would get a say in your management but you would ALSO be liable for their misdeeds to the extent any junior partner is. On the other hand, if they wanted to fire you they would have to buy you out so there would be that. Sound like a good idea? Oh hell no! Does ANYONE think that is a good idea?
Do you want your regular paycheck to vary with the day to day sales, changing business environment, the regulatory environment (new capex to meet new regs for example), liability claims, etc? Ok, a few people work sales and are used to sorta living like that, but then your pay in sales is usually directly tied to your performance, unlike say the receptionist; she doesn't want her paycheck to vary based on weekly cash flow, or even her call volume, of the company and she SHOULD NOT have to. A receptionist either performs her job to the satisfaction of her superior and remains on the payroll or doesn't and gets sacked if things do not quickly improve. And even the salesman doesn't want to be compensated based on the profitability of the entire business, he wants the direct feedback of sell more, earn more.
And no, the usual socialist argument that employers abuse employees so unions are a counter to that is broken. How does seizing the business and exchanging a greedy boss for a corrupt gangster in the union improve anything? At least the boss wants to make money and can be dealt with, the union goon is harvesting political powe and doesn't give a damn if your job vanishes, if the company makes profits or folds. Didn't we just see this demonstrated in the story we are discussing? They knew the business was unprofitable, they were told the owner would pull the plug and they did it anyway to make a political point.
(Score: 4, Informative) by aristarchus on Tuesday November 07 2017, @03:38AM (5 children)
Again! Now jmorris is triggered, too! Will no one think of the conservatives! WHY IS THERE NO TRIGGER WARNING ON THIS ARTICLE? I fear we are opening up SoylentNews to possible lawsuits for damages to libertarians and conservatives who inflict grevious bodily damage to themselves and others by means of sheer volume of spittle! I mean, just look at jmorris, the poor thing. Yes, of course, he is a scab, or would be if he could actually work, but I had no idea he could type this many words as one sitting. I hope he is OK. So again, please preface controversial articles about things like workers rights, labor laws, social justice, mom and apple pie, with an appropriate TRIGGER WARNING so that guilty parties like jmorris are not made to suffer needlessly.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by jmorris on Tuesday November 07 2017, @03:50AM (4 children)
And that was about as useless a contribution as one might imagine. Maybe that is why you love the idea so much; From each according to their ability would leave you a lot of free time. :)
(Score: 2, Troll) by aristarchus on Tuesday November 07 2017, @05:12AM (2 children)
Oh! Good one, jmo! But it does not change the fact that unions are a force for good and justice. Hell, I have belonged to lots of them, since before the name even existed. And your contribution is the useless one. Theft? Ohrly? Prodhoun said, famously, "property is theft", and it is precisely theft from the workers, the ones who actually create new value. So this particular vampiric capitalist bastard has shut down the whole shebang, thus stealing a living from the writers involved. Current Capitalist laws may say he has every right to do so, but you know, you do that to enough people, and sooner or later, you just run out of workers because you have shut down all your businesses. That is the end you face, jmorris, if you actually had any capital, and were not the worst sort of lumpenproletariat fascist sympathizing scum. What have you contributed to humanity, jmorris? What will you be remembered for, generations hence? It is a real question.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by jmorris on Tuesday November 07 2017, @05:42AM (1 child)
Uh huh, and you walked to school uphill both ways. You did know labor unions are a 19th Century invention, right?
I think we are getting close to your problem, following philosophers from the busted fork. In America we follow the good fork off the Enlightenment, the French / Marxist side of the fork was a big mistake that killed people by the hundreds of millions. To put it in a tech analogy you are a diehard still following XFree86, dreaming of a big comeback. while the cool people are at X.org making new stuff. I'm looking at em building Wayland and Vulkan and praying they know what they are doing.
Yup, right out of Capital. You do know his Labor Theory of Value is, in precise scientific terms, "shit", right? And without that nothing else in that damned book makes any sense at all. Still amazed how many people fell for that horse crap hard enough to kill in its name. If the workers create so much damned value, why are they so utterly unable to do it without the capital supplied by the Capitalists? No, they are selling a commodity in the market just like everybody else participating in the free market, they are not special or privileged as the only entity creating "surplus value" to be "appropriated" and if you actually understood the damned book you would realize pretty much everything in it is redefined from the normal meaning of words to be based on that one core fallacy.
Without property rights there isn't much of a civilization possible. Even the commies quickly figured that out, they just figured The Party should own everything and the members should all have estates and live like feudal lords while the masses slaved away in a condition any serf would have recognized.
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Tuesday November 07 2017, @08:00AM
Oh, no, jmorris, you ought not have done this!
You exquisitely ignorant, full of yourself, complete ignoramous! I will bring thousands of years of philosophical insight down upon your head, you idiot! Did it not occur to you that this would not be a good idea?
Quaint, it that is a word that can be applied to persons with absolutely no historical perspective. Enlightenment, what would a cretin like yourself know about such things! You are probably an adherent of the "Dark Enlightenment" [wikipedia.org] of the Bannons and Thiels, who think that knowledge is a bad thing, for the masses. But you do understand the continuum from the American Revolution, with such radical things as a declaration of the inherent equality of all persons, and its "bill of rights" [wikipedia.org], through to the "Rights of Man and the Citizen" [wikipedia.org] to the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" [un.org]? Or perhaps, you do not, you reactionary scum. But
do try to keep up.
You leap directly to Marx. But it is better to consider the history of Economic ideas, especially the ideas of Ricardo and Say. [newworldencyclopedia.org] Now I know from your posting here, that economics is not your strong suite, but just try to follow along. Value is not a real thing. Thus, it must be established on something else, something real. That really leaves only two things it could be based on: exchange value, and the cost of production (or, opportunity cost, but that will take you over your head, my dear jmorris.).
No, I do not know that. Do you? [wikipedia.org] The value of anything, really is equivalent to the amount of human labor it takes to produce that thing? Now, you may be thinking, if you do think, "this cannot be right, because oil is worth something just in itself!" Ah, commodity fetishism! Such a difficult disease to cure! But stick with me, jmorris, your cure is on the horizon. Use value is a thing, but the use value is determined by the labor cost of obtaining the use-value. So oil is worth something, but the more expensive it is to obtain (the higher the labor costs), the less valuable the oil itself is, and with competition, the cost of oil reduces to the costs of the labor (including labor sunk into tech, tools and expertise). Science, or just fact? Decide for yourself.
The rest of your "triggered rant" does not need much refutation. But you do go on to say:
'
Here you are sinking to khallow levels if ignorance! Property rights? Do you think these are one thing across history? Au contraire, my petit morris! Let me familiarize you with the Roman concept of Paterfamilias. Under Roman law, the father "owned" the family. I guess that means that if they tried to for a "union" (what we call a 'family'), they could all be sold into slavery. Brutal discipline, those Romans. So who owns you, my little gladitorial jmorris? Moving on.
So the Feudal period. No more slaves. Did you ever wonder why? And the Lord was the lord of the realm. Except that he did not "own" the property he "ruled" over. He was traditionally entitled to a tithe, or 10% of the produce of the land. But the Peasants held tenure. Not so much that they owned the land, as that the land owned them. Now, the Brits, of course, screwed all this up, and so became capitalists.
The point is, my dear and fluffy-headed jmorris, is that the concept of "property" is far from an eternal principle, and the rights and duties (see that?) attendant upon property have shifted, depending, as Marx has correctly pointed out, on the mode and relations of production. Now clearly you are not intelligent enough to understand such theory. But just let me say, that when an "owner" shuts down a going concern, for no more reason that to assert his "ownership" of said business, it is not different than a feudal lord massacring his peasants because they did not agree to his arbitrary and illegal and unholy increase in the tithe. And with no serfs, no grain, since knights cannot plow nor reap. And with no grain, no tithe. And so the Capitalist has cut his own throat.
So clearly you see, my not too bright but ideologically infuriated jmorris, that communism is inevitable, not because of some theft or violence, or violent imposition that no one saw coming, but simply because it is the one form of production that all parties can agree to. So unions are only a step, a socialist step, and necessary step nonetheless. And the reactionary behavior of billionaires like this one is inevitable, but it will not last. The greatest thing about Marxist theory, jmorris, is its inevitability, and the way in which late capitalists are actually going to bring that inevitability about. Some one mentioned, Kill the Mouse?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @02:33AM
Strangely, though, he gets moderated up for those inane posts. He trolls, and people mod him up. Go figure . . .
(Score: 5, Informative) by sjames on Tuesday November 07 2017, @05:33AM (4 children)
The union is no more and no less than a group of workers choosing to negotiate as a group to level the playing field. Unless you reject the right to freely assemble, unions are fair enough. If we're going to allow corporations to exist, it's only fair to also support unions.
(Score: 0, Troll) by jmorris on Tuesday November 07 2017, @06:08AM (3 children)
Nope. A union in the United States is legally (but not morally) seizing the means of production. If workers want to form a legal entity and have that entity offer to supply labor as a block to their former employer as some sort of outsourced thing, more power to em. Can't see where things improve for the workers, meet the new boss, same as the old and all that but free country and all.
Where I define it as theft is when they use the power of the government to tell the nominal owner of the plant the union is now legally the only entity who can supply labor at that location and the management will accept their terms or else. If any number of "unions" could bid on the contract it would be an improvement but still a theft if the option to say "no your overhead is greater than keeping our own personnel dept and we like the ability to quickly remove defective employees" is legally removed.
It is the force that makes it theft. Where do you get the right to seize someone's property? Working somewhere does NOT confer an ownership right. If I hire you to work in my machine shop we agree on a specified amount of work for a set price. If we continue that relationship for a period of time you do NOT begin to accrue ownership of my property unless we agree to become partners and YOU either directly invest some capital (example cash or contribute some machinery) or some sort of allocation of some of your wages into a share of ownership. If you decide to work elsewhere at some point neither of us owe the other anything. When I pass on the shop is part of my estate, the only way you inherit it is we have developed such a relationship that I'd put that in my will and give it to you instead of next of kin. In exactly the same way that if you kick off I don't get your house just because you were working for me. We are not partners and I'm not your feudal Lord. Working together for our mutual benefit doesn't make us family.
And nothing changes if I hire a thousand people. Because they decide they want it doesn't mean they can morally seize the workplace some fine afternoon and dictate the terms of their future employment. But legally they can do exactly that in many places in this so called "free country." And a total shutdown of all business operations at the afflicted address is the only recourse the black robed tyrants left available.
Typically the location is simply allowed to rot because nobody wants to restart any business there for fear they will be declared somehow tainted by the previous entity and instantly declared a union shop by a judge. It takes years and many burnt offerings to the lawyers to cleanse the taint. Or enough blight in one area that the government moves from "if it moves tax it, if it keeps moving regulate it" to the final "if it stops moving subsidize it" phase and declares the area a "development zone" to lure in new businesses.
(Score: 5, Informative) by turgid on Tuesday November 07 2017, @08:30AM
This here balderdash is why America is broken.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday November 07 2017, @09:06AM (1 child)
Got any examples? Because I am not aware of any case where a union has managed to acquire the company they used to work for under anything but amicable conditions. I am unaware, for example, of the UAW owning the Detroit auto makers now.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday November 07 2017, @10:26AM
jmorris is triggered. Best to not respond to him for a period of at least 24 hours. Same for TMB. They have suffered serious trauma, mostly by having completely batshit ideas and having to face the contradiction with reality those ideas entail. But as I say, just help them calm down by not responding. Of course, you probably should mod them down, in the nicest fashion possible, so as to hide their outbursts from the general internets public. Soylentils have to take care of our own, especially when they act up like this.