Current Events > Owner abruptly shuts down Gothamist, LAist, DCist etc cuz employees unionize

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/02/nyregion/dnainfo-gothamist-shutting-down.html

damn this really sucks

as someone who lives in LA, LAist was the best website to keep up-to-date about local news, special events, shows, concerts, food stuff, etc
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX7wtNOkuHo

Worst part is he deleted the archives too. So you can't view old articles anymore.
---

I sincerely hope that's against the law
---

so, employees join an union.
owner says "HA, FUCK NO" and shuts down the sites.
moral of the story is: dont unionize.
---

averagejoel posted...

I sincerely hope that's against the law

Unfortunately, with no strong labor movement in this country, nope.

Walmart will do the same thing if a stores employees threaten to unionize.
---

dr_zomberg posted...

so, employees join an union.
owner says "HA, FUCK NO" and shuts down the sites.
moral of the story is: dont unionize.

better moral: enact laws that disallow owners from doing that
---

averagejoel posted...

dr_zomberg posted...

so, employees join an union.
owner says "HA, FUCK NO" and shuts down the sites.
moral of the story is: dont unionize.

better moral: enact laws that disallow owners from doing that

until then...

"HA, FUCK NO"
---

bummer, really liked the LAist for shit to do around here during the week and on weekends.
---

averagejoel posted...

dr_zomberg posted...

so, employees join an union.
owner says "HA, FUCK NO" and shuts down the sites.
moral of the story is: dont unionize.

better moral: enact laws that disallow owners from doing that

So, mandate, under force of law, that an unprofitable enterprise remain in business?
The only people who actually stand to gain from this are bankruptcy lawyers.

It's already illegal to threaten closing, to dissuade a union vote. Nothing can stop a business from actually folding soon after.

averagejoel posted...

dr_zomberg posted...

so, employees join an union.
owner says "HA, FUCK NO" and shuts down the sites.
moral of the story is: dont unionize.

better moral: enact laws that disallow owners from doing that

So, fuck property rights?
---

A goddamn shame that local news is not considered an eessential public service.
---

EyeWontBeFooled posted...

A goddamn shame that local news is not considered an eessential public service.

Do you not have local television stations? A local newspaper?

Well, maybe not. Those are slowly dying too.

Well, that's quite scummy of him.
---

averagejoel posted...

dr_zomberg posted...

so, employees join an union.
owner says "HA, FUCK NO" and shuts down the sites.
moral of the story is: dont unionize.

better moral: enact laws that disallow owners from doing that

So wait, you would force owners of companies to work against their will when their company no longer turns a profit?
---

Solar_Crimson posted...

Well, that's quite scummy of him.

That he closed his unprofitable business? Yeah, how DARE a business owner want to actually make a profit!
---

Important bits from the article:

But he added, DNAinfo is, at the end of the day, a business, and businesses need to be economically successful if they are to endure.

But in the financially daunting era of digital journalism, there has been no tougher nut to crack than making local news profitable, a lesson Mr. Ricketts, who lost money every month of DNAinfos existence, is just the latest to learn.

For DNAinfo and Gothamist, the staffs vote to join the Writers Guild of America East was just part of the decision to close the company. A spokeswoman for DNAinfo said in a statement, The decision by the editorial team to unionize is simply another competitive obstacle making it harder for the business to be financially successful.

The decision puts 115 people out of work, both at the New York operations that unionized and at those in Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington that did not. They are getting three months of paid administrative leave at full salary, plus four weeks of severance, DNAinfo said.

Questionmarktarius posted...

averagejoel posted...

dr_zomberg posted...

so, employees join an union.
owner says "HA, FUCK NO" and shuts down the sites.
moral of the story is: dont unionize.

better moral: enact laws that disallow owners from doing that

So, mandate, under force of law, that an unprofitable enterprise remain in business?
The only people who actually stand to gain from this are bankruptcy lawyers.

It's already illegal to threaten closing, to dissuade a union vote. Nothing can stop a business from actually folding soon after.

they didn't fold. the owner closed it because he didn't want to treat them fairly, and basically deleted the archives out of spite. are you defending that?
---

The news took the newsroom by surprise. David Colon, a reporter for Gothamist, said that a lawyer for DNAinfo was present when the staff was told, but that he didnt really take questions.

Well, what did you expect? Private companies don't like unions. They never did. Only reasons unions existed in the first place was because the work force was so strong. Now it's been fragmented and parceled out to other regions of the world. The power is back in the hands of the powerful now. Sucks, doesn't it?

dr_zomberg posted...

so, employees join an union.
owner says "HA, FUCK NO" and shuts down the sites.
moral of the story is: dont unionize.

I went through the same thing when I worked for a call centre. They actually warned us not to unionize, else they would essentially pull up stakes and move on to the next city.

averagejoel posted...

they didn't fold. the owner closed it because he didn't want to treat them fairly, and basically deleted the archives out of spite. are you defending that?

That's not what he said at all. Take your own interpretation as to what he really meant, but you don't know the salary structure, benefit programs, or anything from those businesses. You can't ignore that it's become increasingly difficult for news organisations to remain solvent because of how the nature of news has changed in the last 10 years. If a business isn't making money, then you either change things so that it does make money, or you cut your losses and move on. He chose the easier option. I don't blame him, but I feel sorry for those people who were laid off. At least they're getting a severance package out of it.
---

averagejoel posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

averagejoel posted...

dr_zomberg posted...

so, employees join an union.
owner says "HA, FUCK NO" and shuts down the sites.
moral of the story is: dont unionize.

better moral: enact laws that disallow owners from doing that

So, mandate, under force of law, that an unprofitable enterprise remain in business?
The only people who actually stand to gain from this are bankruptcy lawyers.

It's already illegal to threaten closing, to dissuade a union vote. Nothing can stop a business from actually folding soon after.

they didn't fold. the owner closed it because he didn't want to treat them fairly, and basically deleted the archives out of spite. are you defending that?

Yes.
A money-losing business was about to start losing even more money.

The guy is paying everyone four months to not work anyway. That's not very "spiteful" at all.

dolomedes posted...

dnainfo was hyperlocal, i'd go there every few days to read about what was going on in my neighborhood.

Have you looked into nextdoor.com?

I used to read the Gothamist. Shame it's gone.

But it's not like the dude would close down the business if it would still make him money.
---

Hm, I read the article. Guy was losing money. Union was the nail in the coffin, which probably came about from him trying to cut costs.

Workers are getting three months of full pay, which is really fucking generous afaik.

So whatever. It aint news that news isnt as profitable as it used to be.
---

If the guy owns the company he can do whatever he wants with it.
---

dolomedes posted...

i'm not interested in social media, tbh.

It's really bad at being social media. It's more a glorified classified section than anything else, full of lost pets and discarded furniture.

I see that people are just looking for an excuse to attack the owner.

The business was not profitable. Workers want to unionize and squeeze money from the owner, even though it was not profitable. What did they think the outcome was going to be? Writers in NYC think too much of themselves. Anyone can claim to be a writer these days.

Let see one of these guys/girls open their own local magazine and make it profitable. Maybe then they'll finally understand.
---

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

I see that people are just looking for an excuse to attack the owner.

The business was not profitable. Workers want to unionize and squeeze money from the owner, even though it was not profitable. What did they think the outcome was going to be? Writers in NYC think too much of themselves. Anyone can claim to be writer these days.

Let see one of these guys/girls open their own local magazine and make it profitable. Maybe then they'll finally understand.

Also he gave them all an absurdly good package when he could probably have legally given them all nothing.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

averagejoel posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

averagejoel posted...

dr_zomberg posted...

so, employees join an union.
owner says "HA, FUCK NO" and shuts down the sites.
moral of the story is: dont unionize.

better moral: enact laws that disallow owners from doing that

So, mandate, under force of law, that an unprofitable enterprise remain in business?
The only people who actually stand to gain from this are bankruptcy lawyers.

It's already illegal to threaten closing, to dissuade a union vote. Nothing can stop a business from actually folding soon after.

they didn't fold. the owner closed it because he didn't want to treat them fairly, and basically deleted the archives out of spite. are you defending that?

Yes.
A money-losing business was about to start losing even more money.

The guy is paying everyone four months to not work anyway. That's not very "spiteful" at all.

so the essence of what you're saying is that money is more important than people
---

Two points.

1) If you're happy that the employees got canned for attempting to unionize, you're an idiot. Two things and two things only raise overall pay levels across the board, direct government intervention in increasing the minimum wage and organized labor. And there's a reason why wages have stagnated over the past two decades, which has been an overall attack against organized labor and increased hesitancy to increase the minimum wage. Don't be a tool and celebrate others losing their jobs for having the audacity to want better wages and job security. That only hurts you long-run.

2) Even if they were closed solely because of them losing money, a) the timing is questionable, and b) the act of shutting down the archives is nothing more than a vindictive move by Ricketts.
---

averagejoel posted...

so the essence of what you're saying is that money is more important than people

You're more than welcome to hire these 115 displaced workers.

averagejoel posted...

so the essence of what you're saying is that money is more important than people

To a businessman, yes. Money is worth more than people. More precisely, not losing money is worth more than people.
---

K181 posted...

b) the act of shutting down the archives is nothing more than a vindictive move by Ricketts.

This is what gets my ire. The writers are now seeking new jobs without examples of their recent work to show potential employees.

In September, Mr. Ricketts, a conservative who supported President Trump in last years election, raised the ante with a post on his blog titled Why Im Against Unions At Businesses I Create, in which he argued that unions promote a corrosive us-against-them dynamic that destroys the esprit de corps businesses need to succeed.

Gotta say, nothing builds esprit de corps like abruptly firing everyone without warning.
---

Antifar posted...

Gotta say, nothing builds esprit de corps like abruptly firing everyone without warning.

Espirit de corpse, maybe.

If the archives were hosted on servers he paid for, and he was shutting down the business, he may have closed the archives simply because he didn't want to put out any more money on the business.

I mean... it's probably spite, but I think people are ignoring the fact that archives also cost money to maintain.
---

K181 posted...

1) If you're happy that the employees got canned for attempting to unionize, you're an idiot. Two things and two things only raise overall pay levels across the board, direct government intervention in increasing the minimum wage and organized labor. And there's a reason why wages have stagnated over the past two decades, which has been an overall attack against organized labor and increased hesitancy to increase the minimum wage. Don't be a tool and celebrate others losing their jobs for having the audacity to want better wages and job security. That only hurts you long-run.

You're right. I touched on this earlier when I said that unions only worked because the work force was strong, and they were necessary. Now? Not so much. There aren't any unions for tech jobs and industry, where most of the growth is right now, and no one is rushing to unionize service industry jobs exactly for this reason. All the strong unionized jobs have been segmented and sold to countries where they work for figurative pennies on the dollar to the US workers, or have been outright replaced by robotics. The 1% on the top enjoy making money too much to allow the people underneath them to better themselves in their current position, so you're left with a stagnant wage and increasing frustration in the work force.
---

Alucard188 posted...

I touched on this earlier when I said that unions only worked because the work force was strong

You have this backwards; the work force was strong because of unions.
---

averagejoel posted...

so the essence of what you're saying is that money is more important than people

I like how the interests of the guy who is bleeding money thanks business venture doesn't matter at all to you.

K181 posted...

Two things and two things only raise overall pay levels across the board, direct government intervention in increasing the minimum wage and organized labor.

And those two things also are the major causes of unemployment
---

Also, why are people saying that he's deleting the archives? From the article:

All other articles promptly vanished from the sites; an official at DNAinfo said they would be archived online.

Antifar posted...

You have this backwards; the work force was strong because of unions.

No. The workforce was strong because they were necessary, and had enough of numbers to overpower the rich and force them to play ball. That's how unions started. Business owners started chipping away at that by modernizing operations and opening new bases overseas. They were rendered not as necessary, and were "restructured" as a result. Unions are outmoded now, and there's a strong undercurrent of negativity around them because of the bullshit spin jobs analysts and business owners do about the subject.
---

Antifar posted...

Gotta say, nothing builds esprit de corps like abruptly firing everyone without warning.

Read the article again. He warn them that he would shut it down if they attempted to unionize. And the union organizers assured that it was just a "Union Busting Tactic". If they want to blame anyone, it should be the Union Organizers who wanted to collect more membership fees.
---

Alucard188 posted...

an official at DNAinfo said they would be archived online.

This statement was after several hours of public outcry
---

And nothing of value was lost.
---

Antifar posted...

Alucard188 posted...

an official at DNAinfo said they would be archived online.

This statement was after several hours of public outcry

That's fine. They're still getting archived, though. Your outcry worked.
---

probably has little to nothing to do with the union tbqh

WEHCO media, a news company in the Arkansas-Missouri-Tennessee area, just laid off dozens of employees from their local papers too, including shuttering several

https://talkbusiness.net/2017/10/wehco-media-eliminates-86-newspaper-jobs-including-16-at-nwa-democrat-gazette/
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Important bits from the article:

But he added, DNAinfo is, at the end of the day, a business, and businesses need to be economically successful if they are to endure.

But in the financially daunting era of digital journalism, there has been no tougher nut to crack than making local news profitable, a lesson Mr. Ricketts, who lost money every month of DNAinfos existence, is just the latest to learn.

For DNAinfo and Gothamist, the staffs vote to join the Writers Guild of America East was just part of the decision to close the company. A spokeswoman for DNAinfo said in a statement, The decision by the editorial team to unionize is simply another competitive obstacle making it harder for the business to be financially successful.

The decision puts 115 people out of work, both at the New York operations that unionized and at those in Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington that did not. They are getting three months of paid administrative leave at full salary, plus four weeks of severance, DNAinfo said.

Clearly this man is a monster....
---

averagejoel posted...

dr_zomberg posted...

so, employees join an union.
owner says "HA, FUCK NO" and shuts down the sites.
moral of the story is: dont unionize.

better moral: enact laws that disallow owners from doing that

Why should it be against the law for a business owner to do that?
---

K181 posted...

1) If you're happy that the employees got canned for attempting to unionize, you're an idiot. Two things and two things only raise overall pay levels across the board, direct government intervention in increasing the minimum wage and organized labor. And there's a reason why wages have stagnated over the past two decades, which has been an overall attack against organized labor and increased hesitancy to increase the minimum wage. Don't be a tool and celebrate others losing their jobs for having the audacity to want better wages and job security. That only hurts you long-run.

Stop generalizing. Salaries have been skyrocketing in a number of industries, especially in area with high demand for highly prized skillsets.

The publishing industry has always been this way. I worked in the publishing industry for 4 years and they pay some of the lowest salaries in any industry. Back in the day, companies would pay up to $100,000 for a full page ad. Some magazines were able to command $1000-$10,000 for a full page ad. These days, you're make money on CPM and CPP, a far cry from the golden age of magazine and news publishing. Many news publishers have been downsizing for the last 10 years.

So you tell me know how you're going to improve salaries if businesses has become less profitable or even worse, a money-losing business. It's easy to talk when you don't understand the industry.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

averagejoel posted...

so the essence of what you're saying is that money is more important than people

Far more important. People are fleeting; money is eternal.

Good to know
---

Alucard188 posted...

K181 posted...

1) If you're happy that the employees got canned for attempting to unionize, you're an idiot. Two things and two things only raise overall pay levels across the board, direct government intervention in increasing the minimum wage and organized labor. And there's a reason why wages have stagnated over the past two decades, which has been an overall attack against organized labor and increased hesitancy to increase the minimum wage. Don't be a tool and celebrate others losing their jobs for having the audacity to want better wages and job security. That only hurts you long-run.

You're right. I touched on this earlier when I said that unions only worked because the work force was strong, and they were necessary. Now? Not so much. There aren't any unions for tech jobs and industry, where most of the growth is right now, and no one is rushing to unionize service industry jobs exactly for this reason. All the strong unionized jobs have been segmented and sold to countries where they work for figurative pennies on the dollar to the US workers, or have been outright replaced by robotics. The 1% on the top enjoy making money too much to allow the people underneath them to better themselves in their current position, so you're left with a stagnant wage and increasing frustration in the work force.

Specialized workers have long been among the priorities of unionization dating back to skilled machinists. You saying that the top 1% likes their money too much to allow pay increases is literally the argument for more union power and influence, not less. We're reaching a point where unionization is actually probably more needed than it was decades ago. The difference now is that the country's mood has been corrupted into a warped belief that unions are bad because they contribute to overall stagnation when the literal opposite was the case when they were much stronger and more numerous.

Case in point...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

And those two things also are the major causes of unemployment

Not for the decades preceding the 1980s and getting into the 1990s. Unions and minimum wage increases were at the forefront of our country's economic booms by providing for a strong middle class and increased numbers of potential consumers with disposable income. The more people that make living wages and better, the stronger the overall economy and increased profits of most industries. The notion that they cause unemployment is focusing solely on the horror stories on businesses on the verge of collapse already and short-term adjustments that even out in the long-run.

Sorry, but we live in a new guilded age where wealth has become increasingly concentrated and CEO salaries and many industry profits are at all-time highs while wages have stagnated. Don't get mad at unions for fighting for the working man's rights as hurting your job prospects while your own job isn't providing sufficient cost of living increases because there's no overall incentive or pressure on them to do so.
---