The Boston Globe is reporting...
"The New York Times Co. has threatened to close the Boston Globe if it can't get the paper's unions to agree to $20 million in concessions... Management told union leaders Thursday that the Globe will lose $85 million in 2009, unless serious cutbacks are made..." MORE.
Now try and reconcile the above against a December 28, 2008 New York Times editorial in support of Obama's pro union agenda...
"Even modest increases in the share of the unionized labor force push wages upward, because nonunion workplaces must keep up with unionized ones that collectively bargain for increases. By giving employees a bigger say in compensation issues, unions also help to establish corporate norms, the absence of which has contributed to unjustifiable disparities between executive pay and rank-and-file pay.
The argument against unions — that they unduly burden employers with unreasonable demands — is one that corporate America makes in good times and bad...
...There is a strong argument that the slack labor market of a recession actually makes unions all the more important. Without a united front, workers will have even less bargaining power in the recession than they had during the growth years of this decade, when they largely failed to get raises even as productivity and profits soared. If pay continues to lag, it will only prolong the downturn by inhibiting spending." MORE
So is this a case of the New York Times not practicing what it preaches? A case of easier said than done? Or just cold hard reality?
"The New York Times Co. has threatened to close the Boston Globe if it can't get the paper's unions to agree to $20 million in concessions... Management told union leaders Thursday that the Globe will lose $85 million in 2009, unless serious cutbacks are made..." MORE.
Now try and reconcile the above against a December 28, 2008 New York Times editorial in support of Obama's pro union agenda...
"Even modest increases in the share of the unionized labor force push wages upward, because nonunion workplaces must keep up with unionized ones that collectively bargain for increases. By giving employees a bigger say in compensation issues, unions also help to establish corporate norms, the absence of which has contributed to unjustifiable disparities between executive pay and rank-and-file pay.
The argument against unions — that they unduly burden employers with unreasonable demands — is one that corporate America makes in good times and bad...
...There is a strong argument that the slack labor market of a recession actually makes unions all the more important. Without a united front, workers will have even less bargaining power in the recession than they had during the growth years of this decade, when they largely failed to get raises even as productivity and profits soared. If pay continues to lag, it will only prolong the downturn by inhibiting spending." MORE
So is this a case of the New York Times not practicing what it preaches? A case of easier said than done? Or just cold hard reality?
No comments:
Post a Comment