4 ms·
The "quotes" have been chosen to back the author's opinion obviously. Additional evidence is the liberal use of finger quotes around words like sabotage and eme
by batch12 3y ago
The "quotes" have been chosen to back the author's opinion obviously. Additional evidence is the liberal use of finger quotes around words like sabotage and emergency maneuvers to lower the weight of those statements. The best evidence is the whole headline:
"Supreme Court Rules Companies Can Sue Striking Workers for 'Sabotage' and 'Destruction,' Misses Entire Point of Striking"
Edit: This one stands out. Is it a paraphrase or a quote? If it's a quote maybe they hit their tick limit and couldn't afford any more marks?
Union leaders agree that strikes are supposed to be disruptive. But the precedent this case sets is that when a union goes on strike, it has to ensure that it won’t lose the company any money, said Seth Goldstein, a lawyer at Julien, Mirer, Singla & Goldstein, who has supported organizers in union disputes at Trader Joe’s and Amazon.
- CharlesW 3y ago> The "quotes" have been chosen to back the author's opinion obviously. Or, to provide some balance to the actual anti-union ruling. The quoted words are from the ruling. "Misses Entire Point of Striking" is a statement of fact, because striking can't work if that act doesn't negatively impact the business.
- batch12 3y agoGotcha, so bias like this is good as long as you agree with it. I don't think we are going to have a real discussion about the issue I actually brought up, so better to end it here. I wish you a good weekend. Edit: removed the word agree because that doesn't matter