Hmmm…. What would the New York Times say if someone else, like let’s say Walmart, threatened to close down its units because unions would drive costs too high. Oh, wait, they did write an editorial about that on August 16, 2008. It begins:
I guess it is hardly news that the New York Times would engage in the same practices that they find deplorable if allegedly done by others.
And who could forget this gem of an editorial by the Times on December 28, 2008? Just a few months ago the Times seemed to think that expanding union power was great because it would raise wages, which was necessary for economic recovery:
This entry was posted on Monday, May 4th, 2009 at 2:57 pm and is filed under economics, politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
5 Responses to Union Busting — Good for the NYT, Bad for Everyone Else
However, there is a profound and wide gap between tough negotiations from a company and its union and refusing to allow collective bargaining in the first place or even dismissing workers for simply wanting a more democratic voice in the workplace.
It sounds as if the NYT was of the opinion that the union negotiation force good corporate norms, including increased wages which were good for everyone (even non-union folk, most research tends to suggest that union’s actually force wages down in non union jobs).
That said, wouldn’t the demand that union folk make concessions mean that the NYT doesn’t like those “good corporate norms” forced on them by the union.
Yes, there is a difference between having a union and closing shop to avoid one, but their point was that the union was always good…until it isn’t.
Reasonable criticism.
However, there is a profound and wide gap between tough negotiations from a company and its union and refusing to allow collective bargaining in the first place or even dismissing workers for simply wanting a more democratic voice in the workplace.
The NYT already has an editorial out for Dec. 28 of this year? Amazing! They’re really on top of things up there.
That’s why Jay’s predictions for Lost always come true. He’s from the future!
Good catch Ryan. I fixed it.
And good points, Michael. There are differences here, but they seem more like of degree, not kind.
Michael,
It sounds as if the NYT was of the opinion that the union negotiation force good corporate norms, including increased wages which were good for everyone (even non-union folk, most research tends to suggest that union’s actually force wages down in non union jobs).
That said, wouldn’t the demand that union folk make concessions mean that the NYT doesn’t like those “good corporate norms” forced on them by the union.
Yes, there is a difference between having a union and closing shop to avoid one, but their point was that the union was always good…until it isn’t.