4 ms·

Gawker Media Employees Vote to Form a Union, and the Bosses Approve

38 points by scottfr 11y ago

mc32 11y ago
Maybe they'll also vote to create well done and actual journalism and the content which goes with such commitment and resist the urge for click-baiting and taking sides... I don't really care how they self organize and how they decide to do labor bargaining. As a reader I care if they can be actual journalists, people who can take time to collect the major facts or aspects of a story and not intentionally by ideology stress one aspect over another or ignore one aspect over another. If you want to have opinions do that in the editorial section -where I'd expect a mix of views, some I agree with some I disagree with. I don't want their "narrative" or anyone else's.
- DaveSapien 11y ago
  Unlikely.
- ratfacemcgee 11y ago
  oh my god this is the best comment I've ever read hahaha!
- nkrumm 11y ago
  But how they self organize is important with respect to their ability to do "actual" journalism. Setting aside the fact that Gawker's whole point is to provide a narrative and to take sides, this type of agreement is important exactly for the reasons you state: collective bargaining will give them the power to push for more time to gathering facts, write bigger stories, etc. Otherwise, the corporation's interests may very well result in clickbait links and hyperbolic headlines.
- caminante 11y ago
  Why should the Gawker network do "actual journalism" if that need's already met by major outlets? Granted, there are listicle happy properties (Lifehacker), but Gawker et al. filled a void with it's meta-criticism of news. It's not rare for Gawker to cover topics that are too risky for major outlets. Take for example the sports property, deadspin. I read deadspin and the deadspin writers broach newsworthy topics that would get an ESPN writer not only "banned from the clubhouse" but suspended by HQ in order to appease the team/league. Deadspin provides signal that major outlets would otherwise avoid or over-cook. Not to over-shill for Gawker, but the commenters are pretty educated and won't let the authors off the hook if the author leaves holes in their argument. I submit that your poop should flow further down the news hill to sites like Vice.com where NYT super-journos call them out for looking at poop[1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLmkec_4Rfo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLmkec_4Rfo
- rawTruthHurts 11y ago
  And this is, boys and girls, what is known as "missing the point"
- rrss1122 11y ago
  Not a chance. That is who they are. The only good site in the Gawker network is Lifehacker. At least they still remain objective, to say nothing about Deadspin and Jezebel. I personally hope unionizing accelerates their decline into insolvency.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
iveqy 11y ago
I'm always surprised about the strong feelings about unions in the US. Coming from Sweden which have 70% of the workforce belonging to a union I have a hard time understanding why unions is a bad thing. Isn't it easier to handle one union that represents your workers than having to deal with all workers one on one? Why are US companies afraid of unions?
- calgoo 11y ago
  Its all capitalistic mumbo jumbo talk that has created the fear of the Unions. ;) In reality its a mix of the American People's fear for anything 'social' mixed with the corruption that has happened in the past in the US. However, these are both issues that are relatively easy to solve (and its not like we don't have these issues in the government). One could almost think that the people in power do not like to share their positions, especially with someone who is supposed to actually stand-up against the governments mistress (or dominatrix, depending on how you look at it), the corporations.
- apsec112 11y ago
  I've never been to Sweden, so I don't know what Swedish unions are like, but unions in the US are usually terrible. Typically, they're structured as one worker, one vote, and I think what typically happens is: - The union asks for workers to be paid above market rate. The company, of course, has limited resources. So the company agrees to pay union members more, but at the expense of newly hired workers, who aren't in the union and so don't get a vote. The end result is that, after a few decades of this, pay is based entirely on seniority and no one has a reason to do good work. - The union asks for more benefits. The company, again, has limited resources. So the company and the union agree to lavish retirement plans, which will only have high costs decades later, after the majority of current workers have retired. When the company goes bankrupt and restructures retirement, the newer workers get screwed, but they weren't working there at the time and so didn't get to vote on it. The management who agreed to the expensive plans is sitting pretty, despite having bankrupted the company, since they are typically older and are now retired too. - A lousy worker's vote counts just as much as a good one's. On the other hand, a good worker who might replace the lousy worker isn't employed at that company, and so doesn't get a vote. Hence, the union gradually creates protections that make current workers almost impossible to fire, while good workers who might replace them remain out of a job. (Examples available ad nauseam.) It's what you'd expect from democracy, really - if you give the vote to everyone in a group and nobody outside, that group will enrich itself at the expense of everyone not currently in it. (This is, I suspect, why most Western countries have such horrible immigration policies.) If Sweden's found a way to fix these problems while still having unions, that's great, but I don't think Americans have yet. EDIT: There are American unions, like the Screen Actors Guild, that seem like exceptions to this. However, actors don't work for the same company for 45 years, which you'd expect to make all the above problems much less bad.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
omouse 11y ago
> It was very simple things like severance if you get fired, things like having clearer salary minimums for each position, a clearer way to talk about raises, promotions That's what employers should pay attention to. It seems like simple stuff that every employer should already have.

38 points by scottfr 11y ago

mc32 11y ago

Maybe they'll also vote to create well done and actual journalism and the content which goes with such commitment and resist the urge for click-baiting and taking sides... I don't really care how they self organize and how they decide to do labor bargaining. As a reader I care if they can be actual journalists, people who can take time to collect the major facts or aspects of a story and not intentionally by ideology stress one aspect over another or ignore one aspect over another. If you want to have opinions do that in the editorial section -where I'd expect a mix of views, some I agree with some I disagree with. I don't want their "narrative" or anyone else's.

DaveSapien 11y ago
Unlikely.
ratfacemcgee 11y ago
oh my god this is the best comment I've ever read hahaha!
nkrumm 11y ago
But how they self organize is important with respect to their ability to do "actual" journalism. Setting aside the fact that Gawker's whole point is to provide a narrative and to take sides, this type of agreement is important exactly for the reasons you state: collective bargaining will give them the power to push for more time to gathering facts, write bigger stories, etc. Otherwise, the corporation's interests may very well result in clickbait links and hyperbolic headlines.
caminante 11y ago
Why should the Gawker network do "actual journalism" if that need's already met by major outlets? Granted, there are listicle happy properties (Lifehacker), but Gawker et al. filled a void with it's meta-criticism of news. It's not rare for Gawker to cover topics that are too risky for major outlets. Take for example the sports property, deadspin. I read deadspin and the deadspin writers broach newsworthy topics that would get an ESPN writer not only "banned from the clubhouse" but suspended by HQ in order to appease the team/league. Deadspin provides signal that major outlets would otherwise avoid or over-cook. Not to over-shill for Gawker, but the commenters are pretty educated and won't let the authors off the hook if the author leaves holes in their argument. I submit that your poop should flow further down the news hill to sites like Vice.com where NYT super-journos call them out for looking at poop[1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLmkec_4Rfo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLmkec_4Rfo
rawTruthHurts 11y ago
And this is, boys and girls, what is known as "missing the point"
rrss1122 11y ago
Not a chance. That is who they are. The only good site in the Gawker network is Lifehacker. At least they still remain objective, to say nothing about Deadspin and Jezebel. I personally hope unionizing accelerates their decline into insolvency.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

iveqy 11y ago

I'm always surprised about the strong feelings about unions in the US. Coming from Sweden which have 70% of the workforce belonging to a union I have a hard time understanding why unions is a bad thing. Isn't it easier to handle one union that represents your workers than having to deal with all workers one on one? Why are US companies afraid of unions?

calgoo 11y ago
Its all capitalistic mumbo jumbo talk that has created the fear of the Unions. ;) In reality its a mix of the American People's fear for anything 'social' mixed with the corruption that has happened in the past in the US. However, these are both issues that are relatively easy to solve (and its not like we don't have these issues in the government). One could almost think that the people in power do not like to share their positions, especially with someone who is supposed to actually stand-up against the governments mistress (or dominatrix, depending on how you look at it), the corporations.
apsec112 11y ago
I've never been to Sweden, so I don't know what Swedish unions are like, but unions in the US are usually terrible. Typically, they're structured as one worker, one vote, and I think what typically happens is: - The union asks for workers to be paid above market rate. The company, of course, has limited resources. So the company agrees to pay union members more, but at the expense of newly hired workers, who aren't in the union and so don't get a vote. The end result is that, after a few decades of this, pay is based entirely on seniority and no one has a reason to do good work. - The union asks for more benefits. The company, again, has limited resources. So the company and the union agree to lavish retirement plans, which will only have high costs decades later, after the majority of current workers have retired. When the company goes bankrupt and restructures retirement, the newer workers get screwed, but they weren't working there at the time and so didn't get to vote on it. The management who agreed to the expensive plans is sitting pretty, despite having bankrupted the company, since they are typically older and are now retired too. - A lousy worker's vote counts just as much as a good one's. On the other hand, a good worker who might replace the lousy worker isn't employed at that company, and so doesn't get a vote. Hence, the union gradually creates protections that make current workers almost impossible to fire, while good workers who might replace them remain out of a job. (Examples available ad nauseam.) It's what you'd expect from democracy, really - if you give the vote to everyone in a group and nobody outside, that group will enrich itself at the expense of everyone not currently in it. (This is, I suspect, why most Western countries have such horrible immigration policies.) If Sweden's found a way to fix these problems while still having unions, that's great, but I don't think Americans have yet. EDIT: There are American unions, like the Screen Actors Guild, that seem like exceptions to this. However, actors don't work for the same company for 45 years, which you'd expect to make all the above problems much less bad.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

omouse 11y ago

> It was very simple things like severance if you get fired, things like having clearer salary minimums for each position, a clearer way to talk about raises, promotions That's what employers should pay attention to. It seems like simple stuff that every employer should already have.