3 ms·

As a former freelance writer, and somebody who lives just an hour north of Danville, it's a really weird feeling to see an LA Times article about something in o

As a former freelance writer, and somebody who lives just an hour north of Danville, it's a really weird feeling to see an LA Times article about something in our sleepy little neck of the woods. Woo hoo! We hit the big time. So naturally, I'm doing quality control as I read. Where are interviews with management? Couldn't get them. Where are the interviews with the politicians who set this deal up? Couldn't do that either (but no explanation). Interviews with the people who like the work? Nope. Any attempt to try to see if there was another side to the story? Unknown, but unlikely. But more importantly: where is the context to the story? You know, where you look at similar plants in the region, talk to somebody who has seen this story occur before, tell us how these things usually play out? You see, there is a great regional story here. But you wouldn't know if from this article. I'm not saying Ikea is running a great plant. If the trend holds, it's probably just like it was described -- at least for some. For others it's probably a life-saver. It follows in a long line of plants where politicians made tax concessions and begged overseas companies to come use the lower wages and higher work ethic found around here. There's a big ribbon-cutting ceremony where your local politician gets to smile and be on the news, there's a big construction effort, there's a big story about management abusing the workers, there's unionization threats, and then -- unionize or not -- both sides work it out. I could tell you 4 or 5 of these stories myself, and I haven't written any news copy in over 20 years. But you wouldn't know any of that from this article. All we get is some hack playing dialing for assholes from a phone hundreds of miles away. I'd like to know where he got the list of people to talk with. I'd also like to know where he got the story idea in the first place. I don't know enough about Ikea to say this story is mostly correct or mostly incorrect. But I know enough about writing and the local area to say this story is mostly incomplete. Not a good article.

duncanj 15y ago
Welcome to the world of corporate-controlled speech. You don't hear from the managers because they aren't permitted to comment. You don't hear from existing workers for the same reason. Only the disgruntled ex-workers and the union rep don't have contractually-obligated silence. So the only opinions you get are the corporate flack, the union rep, and the disgruntled ex-worker. Reporters often bend over backwards to present the other side of a story that has a left-wing bent. Typically they will find someone in that minority (24% in this case) of workers who would have voted against the union and present their opinions with equal weight to the disgruntled ex-worker, and the tone of the article shifts to "existing workers like the job, disgruntled ex-workers disgruntled because they're fired." It's possible a better reporter could extend the same kind of protections and anonymity to the existing workers as their Washington counterparts routinely extend to political operatives, but would you then be complaining that none of the workers or managers had the guts to put their name behind their words? We have no real idea what's going on, and I think it's more in Ikea's interest, than the union's, to keep it that way.

duncanj 15y ago

Welcome to the world of corporate-controlled speech. You don't hear from the managers because they aren't permitted to comment. You don't hear from existing workers for the same reason. Only the disgruntled ex-workers and the union rep don't have contractually-obligated silence. So the only opinions you get are the corporate flack, the union rep, and the disgruntled ex-worker. Reporters often bend over backwards to present the other side of a story that has a left-wing bent. Typically they will find someone in that minority (24% in this case) of workers who would have voted against the union and present their opinions with equal weight to the disgruntled ex-worker, and the tone of the article shifts to "existing workers like the job, disgruntled ex-workers disgruntled because they're fired." It's possible a better reporter could extend the same kind of protections and anonymity to the existing workers as their Washington counterparts routinely extend to political operatives, but would you then be complaining that none of the workers or managers had the guts to put their name behind their words? We have no real idea what's going on, and I think it's more in Ikea's interest, than the union's, to keep it that way.