3 ms·
Yeah, it's scandalous that a site called _Euro_gamer does not have the expertise to understand the difference between an american labor union voting on a strike
by klausa 3y ago
Yeah, it's scandalous that a site called _Euro_gamer does not have the expertise to understand the difference between an american labor union voting on a strike and an american labor union _board_ suggesting a vote on a strike.
- andybak 3y agoIs American practice in this regard radically different to Europe?
- klausa 3y agoWell, there's no unified legal frameworks for them across all of _Europe_, for starters. But in many places there's no need to get the members to authorize the strike, the union itself holds that power (I am at least 99% sure that's the case in Germany and France, at the very least.)
- Tomte 3y agoIn Germany members have to vote for a strike and also for ending a strike. The term is "Urabstimmung".
- klausa 3y agoRight, yes, I oversimplified. You don’t need a vote for „Warnstreik” (warning strike), which frequently is enough to make a point, which makes the „real”/open-ended strikes much more rare than otherwise. AFAICT all strikes I’ve ever seen happen here (the plethora of different train and airport unions) were technically warning strikes and not „real” ones; but they were enough to get the unions their wins.
- dvt 3y agoI don't understand your point. It follows that if they don't have the expertise, than maybe they should not have published the article, no?
- klausa 3y agoI think there's a world of difference between "someone misunderstood something and published an incorrect article" and "someone deliberately wrote misleading headline". My reading of GP disappointed post was that they were accusing them of the latter; which is, in my opinion, underserved here.
- dvt 3y ago> I think there's a world of difference between "someone misunderstood something and published an incorrect article" and "someone deliberately wrote misleading headline". There's a difference, but I don't really see the "world" of difference. They both seem like fundamentally irresponsible journalism. Case (a) should never happen because there's an assumption of due diligence, and case (b) should never happen because there's an assumption of truth-seeking. Not doing due diligence is pretty close to ignoring (or at the very least not caring about) the truth.
- klausa 3y agoI think in an ideal world you’re basically right. In the world we’re living in, with the incentives of modern journalism being what they are (and the state of gaming media industry specifically), I’m willing to cut more slack to people writing about things outside their comfort zone.