OT: The NY Times --- two papers in one
da pickle
"The argument against unions--that they unduly burden employers with
unreasonable demands--is one that corporate America makes in good times and
bad. . . . The real issue is whether enhanced unionizing would worsen the
recession, and there is no evidence that it would. There is a strong
argument that the slack labor market of a recession actually makes unions
all the more important."--editorial, New York Times, Dec. 29, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/29/opinion/29mon1.html?_r=1
"The New York Times News Service will lay off at least 25 editorial
employees next year and will move the editing of the service to a Florida
newspaper owned by The New York Times Company. . . . The plan for the news
service calls for The Gainesville Sun, whose newsroom is not unionized and
has lower salaries, to take over editing and page design."--news story, New
York Times, Nov. 13, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/business/media/13times.html
JerseyRudy
Every decent newspaper is "two papers in one" in this same way...there is
the business of the newspaper seeking to maximize company profits (which
in the case of a publicly traded company must answer first to its
shareholders) and there is the editorial staff of the newspaper which
provides policy opinions.
It is common knowledge that the editorial staff of any decent newspaper is
independent from the company that manages the business of the newspaper.
I'm sure that the New York Times Company understands that their
newspaper's editorial staff has public policy views which are in
disagreement with many business decisions that they make...so what's your
point?
_______________________________________________________________________�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
BTSinAustin
Typical liberal response. Talk the talk until it effects your pocket.
And do not bother, I am not a republican.
Deadmoney Walking
>
> - Show quoted text -
That the editorial page preaches things they would never practice?
JerseyRudy
> - Show quoted text -
>
> That the editorial page preaches things they would never practice?
If that's the point, it is a very stupid one.
Plenty of American companies operate profitably with unionized employees.
Plenty of American companies choose to sacrifice short-term profits in the
name of long-term committment to fair treatment of employees.That's one of
the points of the NY Times editorial.
If you are assuming that the editorial page staff of the NY Times would
manage the business of the newspaper in the same way as the business
people running their company, even though it is in direct contrast with
their policy beliefs, then you are making assumptions with no basis in
fact.
--------�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
risky biz
I take it you think those two quotes are contradictory.
--------�
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
FL Turbo
It's a Classic.
"Do what I say, not what I do."
Probably the best case of hypocrisy you could find.
It ranks right up there with ACORN refusing to pay their employees
minimum wage.
da pickle no spam
wrote:
> Two Papers in One!
>
> "The argument against unions--that they unduly burden employers with
> unreasonable demands--is one that corporate America makes in good times and
> bad. . . . The real issue is whether enhanced unionizing would worsen the
> recession, and there is no evidence that it would. There is a strong
> argument that the slack labor market of a recession actually makes unions
>
> "The New York Times News Service will lay off at least 25 editorial
> employees next year and will move the editing of the service to a Florida
> newspaper owned by The New York Times Company. . . . The plan for the news
> service calls for The Gainesville Sun, whose newsroom is not unionized and
> has lower salaries, to take over editing and page design."--news story, New
> York Times, Nov. 13, 2009http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/business/media/13times.html
Having fun risky??? When will you get your own life?
risky biz
So you're saying the OP is someone pretending to be you and that it's me?
You're the one who needs to get a life. WTF would I pretend to be you?
Don't you realize that would be embarrassing?
"This one size fits all desire by so many people are going to change the
"American way of life" in a way that will not be able to be changed."
- J.C. Pickels, Esq.
Nov 16 2009 2:30 PM
mo_charles
>
> If that's the point, it is a very stupid one.
>
> Plenty of American companies operate profitably with unionized employees.
> Plenty of American companies choose to sacrifice short-term profits in the
> name of long-term committment to fair treatment of employees.That's one of
> the points of the NY Times editorial.
union workers are great. four watching one hold a shovel at twice the
real rate.
> If you are assuming that the editorial page staff of the NY Times would
> manage the business of the newspaper in the same way as the business
> people running their company, even though it is in direct contrast with
> their policy beliefs, then you are making assumptions with no basis in
> fact.
if editorial boards could run companies, they would.
mo_charles
_____________________________________________________________________�
da pickle
>> Plenty of American companies operate profitably with unionized employees.
>> Plenty of American companies choose to sacrifice short-term profits in
>> the
>> name of long-term committment to fair treatment of employees.That's one
>> of
>> the points of the NY Times editorial.
>
> union workers are great. four watching one hold a shovel at twice the
> real rate.
Union troubled by Eagle Scout project in Allentown
http://www.mcall.com/news/all-a8_5scout.7084728nov15,0,6238384.story
In pursuit of an Eagle Scout badge, Kevin Anderson, 17, has toiled for more
than 200 hours over several weeks to clear a walking path in an east
Allentown park.
Little did the do-gooder know that his altruistic act would put him in the
cross hairs of the city's largest municipal union.
Nick Balzano, president of the local Service Employees International Union,
told Allentown City Council Tuesday that the union is considering filing a
grievance against the city for allowing Anderson to clear a 1,000-foot
walking and biking path at Kimmets Lock Park.
"We'll be looking into the Cub Scout or Boy Scout who did the trails,"
Balzano told the council.
Balzano said Saturday he isn't targeting Boy Scouts. But given the city's
decision in July to lay off 39 SEIU members, Balzano said "there's to be no
volunteers." No one except union members may pick up a hoe or shovel, plant
a flower or clear a walking path.
"We would hope that the well-intentioned efforts of an Eagle Scout candidate
would not be challenged by the union," said Mayor Ed Pawlowski in an e-mail
Friday. "This young man is performing a great service to the community. His
efforts should be recognized as such."
Balzano said Saturday the union is still looking into the matter and might
cut the city a break.
JerseyRudy
Not so sure what any of this has to do with your original ignorant belief
that somehow the NY Times was being hypocritical because their editorial
staff disagrees with management regarding using non-union employees, but
as usual you have skirted that issue.
Anecdotes are so much fun, but I prefer larger evidence samples. From the
November 8 Sacramento Press:
"The Blue Diamond Growers almond processing plant in Sacramento offers a
glimpse of what can happen when private-sector workers seek representation.
According to Blue Diamond employee, Frank Garcia, after the International
Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 17 began to organize workers five
years ago, Blue Diamond hired a firm to make employees fearful of voting
to join the union. To date, the plant has no unions.
Professor Kate Bronfenbrenner is director of labor education research at
Cornell University�ｿｽs School of Industrial and Labor Relations. Her
research shows that from 1999 to 2003, private employers used nearly five
times the number of anti-union tactics as public employers.
"In 48 percent of public-sector campaigns,�ｿｽ she notes in her 2009 report
�ｿｽNo Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to
Organizing,�ｿｽ the employer did not campaign at all �ｿｽno letters, no
leaflets, and no meetings."
The Blue Diamond campaign appears to match U.S. workplace trends. American
employers more than doubled their use of anti-union tactics against
employees attempting to form unions between 1999 and 2003, according to
Bronfenbrenner. In �ｿｽNo Holds Barred,�ｿｽ she analyzed a random sample of
1,004 NLRB union election campaigns, and conducted in-depth surveys with
head union organizers in 562 of the campaigns.
Sixty-three percent of employers were reported to use mandatory
one-on-one, anti-union meetings with employees. Further, 57 percent of
employers threatened to close the workplace, 47 percent of employers
issued threats to slash benefits and wages, and 34 percent of employers
fired workers during union organizing drives.
"Both the intensity and changing character of employer behavior, as well
as the fundamental flaws in the NLRB process,�ｿｽ Bronfenbrenner writes,
�ｿｽhave left us with a system where workers who want to organize cannot
exercise that right without fear, threats, harassment, and/or retribution."
Under the NLRB election process, 276,353 workers organized in 1970. By
1999, the year that Bronfenbrenner's latest study begins, 106,699 workers
had won union representation through elections. In 2003, 71,427 workers
organized. According to her findings, the decline is because of employer
behavior such as threats, interrogation, promises, surveillance and
retaliation for union activity. Bronfenbrenner confirmed every unfair
labor practice mentioned by survey respondents through Freedom of
Information Act requests to the NLRB.
She questions how much freedom American workers have regarding
unionization.
"[E]mployers have control of the communication process. In today's
organizing climate they take full advantage of that opportunity to
communicate with their employees through a steady stream of letters,
leaflets, e-mails, digital electronic media, individual one-on-one
meetings with supervisors, and mandatory captive-audience meetings with
top management during work time."
In her view, private employers try to neutralize union campaigns,
emphasizing "interrogation and surveillance to identify supporters." If
that fails, Bronfenbrenner says, "threats and harassment" follow "to try
to dissuade workers from supporting the unions." She found that the union
election win-rate for public-sector employees is nearly double that of
private-sector workers."
________________________________________________________________________�ｿｽ
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
mo_charles
maybe they don't want unionized employees because it drives them the fuck
out of business. are you familiar with the us auto industry? quit buying
the claptrap from lefty morons. unions today are garbage ... the prey on
the weak and stupid, and they destroy jobs.
mo_charles
JerseyRudy
Another reasoned argument based upon sound evidence from a right-winger.
Yes, I am familiar with the US Auto industry. They were the ones making
those gas-guzzling clunker cars that most people didn't want to buy. No
doubt that the unions, not management, were making those decisions.
It was obviously part of a plot by the unions to force management to makes
these poor business decisions, causing their members to lose their jobs.
It all makes perfect sense!
_______________________________________________________________________�ｿｽ
Deadmoney Walking
> > > research shows that from 1999 to 2003, private employers used nearly five
> > > times the number of anti-union tactics as public employers.
>
> > > “No Holds Barred: The Intensification of Employer Opposition to
> > > Organizing,” the employer did not campaign at all —no letters, no
> > > leaflets, and no meetings."
>
> > > The Blue Diamond campaign appears to match U.S. workplace trends. American
> > > employers more than doubled their use of anti-union tactics against
> > > employees attempting to form unions between 1999 and 2003, according to
> > > 1,004 NLRB union election campaigns, and conducted in-depth surveys with
> > > head union organizers in 562 of the campaigns.
>
> > > Sixty-three percent of employers were reported to use mandatory
> > > one-on-one, anti-union meetings with employees. Further, 57 percent of
> > > employers threatened to close the workplace, 47 percent of employers
> > > issued threats to slash benefits and wages, and 34 percent of employers
> > > fired workers during union organizing drives.
>
> > > "Both the intensity and changing character of employer behavior, as well
> > > “have left us with a system where workers who want to organize cannot
>
> - Show quoted text -
Did Toyota manufacture SUVs?
JerseyRudy
> - Show quoted text -
>
> Did Toyota manufacture SUVs?
Sure.
Did GM or Ford or Chrysler manufacture the Civic or the Camri or the
Corolla?
Manufacturing SUVs didn't kill the US Auto industry. There was obviously
a market for them (and still is), so why not try to sell them.
Manufacturing SUVs without also manufacturing fuel-efficient cars that
people wanted to buy is what killed the US Auto industry. Putting your
eggs into a shrinking basket is never a good business model.
But now that we know that these decisions were part of a plot by the
unions to sabotage their employers, it all makes sense.
________________________________________________________________________�
mo_charles
>
> Sure.
>
> Did GM or Ford or Chrysler manufacture the Civic or the Camri or the
> Corolla?
>
> Manufacturing SUVs didn't kill the US Auto industry. There was obviously
> a market for them (and still is), so why not try to sell them.
>
> Manufacturing SUVs without also manufacturing fuel-efficient cars that
> people wanted to buy is what killed the US Auto industry. Putting your
> eggs into a shrinking basket is never a good business model.
>
> But now that we know that these decisions were part of a plot by the
> unions to sabotage their employers, it all makes sense.
so they manufactured the best selling vehicles in the nation, went broke,
and you still think it was their choice of vehicles that killed them?
OK
mo_charles
_____________________________________________________________________�
JerseyRudy
> > > Did Toyota manufacture SUVs?
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> > Did GM or Ford or Chrysler manufacture the Civic or the Camri or the
> > Corolla?
> >
> > Manufacturing SUVs didn't kill the US Auto industry. There was obviously
> > a market for them (and still is), so why not try to sell them.
> >
> > Manufacturing SUVs without also manufacturing fuel-efficient cars that
> > people wanted to buy is what killed the US Auto industry. Putting your
> > eggs into a shrinking basket is never a good business model.
> >
> > But now that we know that these decisions were part of a plot by the
> > unions to sabotage their employers, it all makes sense.
>
> so they manufactured the best selling vehicles in the nation, went broke,
> and you still think it was their choice of vehicles that killed them?
>
> OK
>
> mo_charles
you didn't know that sales of SUVs have dropped sharply the last few
years, and the profits made on each sale have dropped even more sharply?
From US News & World Report:
Motor Trend notes, however, that "each of 2008's best-selling vehicles
showed a decline in sales performance relative to 2007, with the lone
exception being the Honda Civic (+2.1%). Trucks took a big hit
year-on-year, and the F-Series and Silverado, despite topping in overall
sales, showed some of the largest declines in performance of the top ten,
with drops of 25.4% and 24.8%, respectively. The largest drop in the top
ten was suffered by the third truck on the list, the Dodge Ram (-31%)."
The automakers didn't make much money on each truck sale in 2008, either,
with heavy incentives used to move many of the vehicles - and cut profit.
Deadmoney Walking
Your argument is unsound because it tries to absolve the unions by
pointing out mistakes made by management. The two aren't exclusive,
not even close.
JerseyRudy
> - Show quoted text -
>
> Your argument is unsound because it tries to absolve the unions by
> pointing out mistakes made by management. The two aren't exclusive,
> not even close.
I never said they were. I was refuting those who seemed to be placing the
blame for the demise of the US auto industry on the unions.
By the same token, I assume you feel that those who try to blame it on the
unions and absolve the stupid decisions made by management are also off
base.
There is no doubt that the cost of wages and benefits played a part in the
low profit margin. The biggest cost differential between the US auto
industry and its foreign competitors is the health care costs. Only the US
auto industry was burdened by the escalating health care costs paid as
part of the benefits package to its employees; foreign competitors in
countries that have national health insurance systems (all other
industrialized countries) did not have to worry about this.
---�
Deadmoney Walking
Yes anyone who assigned all the blame on one pary is wrong.
It's not just healthcare costs. The distinguishing difference is the
unions secured way too much for themselves. A lot of the company's
money was spent on labor, even to people currently not doing any
work. Even the Toyota plants in the US were easily able to undercut
them.