Longtime readers may recall that I was once a union man, down in Savannah. Thus I can unironically bid you
not to read the Washington Post while its guild is on strike.
Many of you likely have your own, independent reasons to encourage people to respect this particular virtual picket line. That's fine. Solidarity, baby.
9 comments:
This situation is full of ironies. There is the irony of striking to stop layoffs. You wanna strike? No problem- you're fired.
Another irony is that gazillionaire Jeff Bezos could double the number of WaPo journalists and double their salaries without making an appreciable dent in his net worth. The prospect of WaPo layoffs suggests that Jeff Bezos is more concerned with making money than in churning out propaganda for his side.
It would be interesting to find out how WaPo circulation and ad revenue has trended since Jeff Bezos bought it. The impression I have is that WaPo circulation hasn't suffered as much as the run-of-the-mill newspaper because, like the NYT, it has become a go-to news source for Democrats/liberals/"sin nombres"(without a name. Tactful way of calling someone a bastard.) nationwide.
Before Bezos needs to double his head count or their salaries, WaPo employees need to double the value of their work product. They've got a very long way to go just to earn their current salaries.
Aside from that, of course Bezos is more concerned with profit than with churning out propaganda for any side, or even simply having a print news outlet that prints actual, objectively reported news. That's the purpose of businesses--making money for their owners. Contra Progressive-Democratic Party politicians and the Left, companies are not work welfare programs.
As far as I'm concerned, this foolishness is just the union identifying for management the pool from which to draw the layoffs if the offered buyouts don't reach the goal of 240 jobs cut.
Eric Hines
I too was a union man when the state employees of NH were unaffiliated with any of the national unions. It seemed more accessible and accountable then - and dedicated to its original remit of representing the state employees, not tagging along on national causes that had no relation to us.
I think there's a plausible division between public and private sector unions. Private sector unions serve as a method of making the workers equal, or more equal, to the corporate power with which they are bargaining. Public sector unions aren't bargaining against a corporate power, but against the citizenry and the taxpayer. In the one case there's a kind of leveling of the playing field; in the other, a kind of extortion of public goods from the taxpaying public if they don't pay up.
What impressed me a lot about the unions down in Savannah, though, was visiting the members. Young new members often lived in ramshackle trailers sinking into the swamp. Middle-aged members usually had houses in town. Older members had brick homes with pictures of children or grandchildren in caps and gowns. It was a functional method of vertical social movement, for a while.
This was the 1990s. NAFTA had just passed, and all that was already washing away.
Given the example of Bari Weiss and the NYT I doubt money has much to do with this on either side. This is about who gets to control the content of the paper. Bezos is likely to already have plans to generate most WaPo content via AI which will eliminate the Millennial 'journalists' who want their views put into print.
I agree about the difference in union types. I wrote this some years ago, when Wisconsin was addressing this with Act 10:
A public workers’ union is inescapably political. Want a raise, bennies, different job conditions? Your employer is, in the end, the people, and uses tax money which they want a say in the use of.
A public workers’ union, as implemented, uses the adversarial model. Who are the union’s adversaries? Not private business owners—the state: us. It’s kind of rich to call for maintaining a "we’re all in this together solidarity" in that sort of situation.
A public workers’ union, as implemented, has a vested interest in expanding the public sector. Period. Private sector workers’ unions are limited by the economic health of their employers, but the temptation (often succumbed to) has been to regard the taxpayers as an infinitely elastic source of money.
To round out my note, though, I also noted that needed to be _something_. My reference to public service unions as a kind of praetorian guard seems still valid--it is rare here for someone to be elected to the school board without the endorsement of the teachers' union.
The Babylon Bee Writers Stand In Solidarity With Our Fellow Fake News Writers Going On Strike At The Washington Post
I have many views that are unchanged from the days when I consistently voted Democrat. An antipathy to unions is one, especially public sector unions, and especially especially mandatory unions. Filthy practice.
Post a Comment