The Huffington Post Union Campaign Has Officially Begun

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Gawker

Hamilton Nolan

Last week, news leaked that writers at The Huffington Post had formed a committee to unionize. This morning, the campaign began in earnest. Get excited, Arianna!

Since Gawker Media unionized in June, employees from a half dozen other digital media outlets have unionized as well, including Salon, Vice, and The Guardian US. Just yesterday, Al-Jazeera America announced a successful union vote. Other media outlets are quietly talking to union organizers as well.

For the Writers Guild East (which Gawker Media joined) and the News Guild—the two unions working most actively to organize this industry—the obvious unclaimed and not-yet-unionized major prizes are Buzzfeed and Huffington Post. Buzzfeed boss Jona Peretti has already voiced anti-union opinions publicly. Arianna Huffington, though, a longtime mainstream liberal pundit who has built a digital empire by spouting progressive beliefs, would not have much of a leg to stand on by opposing unionizing. Indeed, after last week’s news, she said in a statement that “We fully support our newsroom employees’ right to discuss unionizing and will embrace whatever decision they make on this issue.”

That’s good, because her employees seem to believe that they could use a union’s help. Tales of hellish experiences (or just insufferable ones) working for Huffington have been a staple of media reporting for years.

FULL story at link.

Read more: http://gawker.com/the-huffington-post-union-campaign-has-officially-begun-1735110283

[uawchild]

1. Good move unionizing!

Some people feel the time for unions has past, that there is no need for worker organization and that society and companies are now sufficiently fair-minded to protect worker's interests unfettered by unions. I am not on of those people. As union membership has declined over the last 50 years, the financial plight of the average American has increased.

And its not like many of our self-professed liberal institutions are any better than the general case, the Huffington Post being a case in point. I have friends at Yale University that tell how poorly paid teaching assistants, adjunct profs, university support staff are all paid and that Yale strongly resists unionization to this day at the university. Go figure.

[24601]

2. The decision to unionize or not should not be because it is needed or not. Unionizing is a decision

that I believe relates rationally to 1st Amendment guarantees regarding freedom of association. As such, it should be based instead on which workers choose to form such an association. Everyone should be permitted to unionize and, if freedom of association is to have meaning, everyone should be free to choose a different union. I realize that it's not popular here, but I believe also exercising an individual choice to not join should cost your job just like the 1st Amendment also gives you the right not to worship.

With regards to public employees, we need limits on anyone's right to endanger public safety. For example, you really shouldn't have a Secret Service Agents' Union with the freedom to refuse to protect a President and expect to remain on the payroll. And public safety concerns apply in more than public jobs - airline pilots come to mind. And, with the exception of military personnel and prisoners, pretty much everyone has the right to walk away from their jobs.

[wolfie001]

3. Wow, channelling Scott Walker much?

I hate to cut and paste so much but here goes; I mean I couldn't have stated the FACTS in regards to Right To Work any better than this article from Truth-out.org:

'It means that you don't have to pay for union representation in collective bargaining even when the majority of the workers in their company have democratically voted to be represented by the union.

The union still bargains for you. It helps you get a good salary, paid holidays and a health plan. Members of the union sometimes even go out on strike to make sure you get these benefits.

But when it's time to pay the piper, the piper pays you. If you have a grievance under a union-negotiated contract, the union has to pursue your grievance. You get all the benefits of union coverage without any of the costs of union membership.

Social scientists call this the free-rider problem. The free-rider problem occurs whenever someone can gain all the benefits of an activity without paying any of the costs.

The classic free-rider problem is littering. Littering is great - for the litterer. It's terrible for everyone who has to look at the litter, smell it or pick it up.

Union dues are like taxes. No one likes to pay taxes, but somebody has to. If you can be a free-rider while everybody else pays taxes, that's a great deal for you.

It's not such a great deal for everybody else.

Over time, "right to work" laws destroy unions. That's their real purpose. It's no coincidence that 19 of the 20 states with union membership rates under 8 percent are all "right to work" states.

"Right to work" legislation isn't driven by a groundswell of disgruntled union members chafing under union oppression. Workers who don't want a union can disband their union at any time.

"Right to work" legislation is invariably driven by employers, industry associations and lobbyists. Employers love "right to work," because it really means "right to work for less.'


http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/14160-whats-wrong-with-the-right-to-work

[uawchild]

5. bingo!

Well said. "Right to Work" laws ultimately devolve into "Right to Work for Less" laws in practice.

Free association is nice, but our society is a a very complex and organic entity and simple sounding bromides are often inadequate. The question I ask my libertarian friends is "how can you believe we need the government to protect us from physical coercion but not from economic coercion?" All I get is the worn out response that the magical invisible hand of the market place will stop any attempts at economic coercion. I then ask, "why doesn't the invisible hand of the market place provide private enterprise protection from physical coercion then? Oh wait , it does --- for the 1%." The rest of us need laws and a civil society.

[24601]

6. I detest Walker. Although I have to admit he's done a valuable service demonstrating to my kids why

they need to stay in school and finish college. In this regard, he's the poster-boy.

My beliefs about everyone having the right to unionize certainly aren't lifted from aren't his playbook. I don't have the slightest interest in his playbook or anything else he has to say.

To me, this is fundamentally a Constitutional issue. The oath I took to support and defend the Constitution doesn't mean only the provisions that I would had written myself.

I realize that most people view labor law through the lens of a maze of statutes and that tends to be true for most issues.

But let's get down to details. Other than the one provision of not joining, what else did you disagree with?

Do you really believe that the right to unionize only follows showing the need to do so? I don't and made that clear. If you agree with me on that point, are you channeling Scott Walker?

If you believe everyone should have the right to unionize as I do, are you channeling Scott Walker?

If you believe everyone has the right to change their union as I do, are you channeling Scott Walker?

Do you really believe Secret Service Agents should be able to refuse to protect the President and stay on the Job? I don't. If so, why? If not, are you really channeling Scott Walker or does it have something to do with what you think of President Obama?

Do you really believe any worker, public or private sector has the right to endanger public safety (not public convenience - public safety) and keep getting paid. I don't. If you do, does that include endangering you family too? If you don't agree with endangering your family, are you really channeling Scott Walker?

Are you really taking the position that almost all employees have the right to quit? I do and believe otherwise is outlawed by the 13th Amendment outlawing most involuntary servitude. If not, why? If you agree with that freedom, are you really channeling Scott Walker?

But when you attack anyone (as a Scott Walker supporter) who disagrees with any of your beliefs, who are you channeling? It resembles the tactics of the vast third-way conspiracy that demands 100% agreement or suffer being denounced as an enemy. Go down that path of you choose, but don't drag me there with you.

You overlook the obvious that another solution exists, change the laws regarding free riders. Because for all the things listed above, I don't believe there should be a right to benefits you can choose freely but elect not to. And changing that doesn't require a Constitutional Amendment. Relatively simple changes in laws and implementing regulations would accomplish it.

Do you at least support that? Or do you think cutting off free riders would be channeling Scott Walker?

[wolfie001]

7. My Mom told me to stay in school!...or else

Who needs a RW hatchet-man to make such an obvious statement like that? He's a punk for the 1% and has no place here at DU except to be mocked. Is Grover Cleveland your avatar? He was very underwhelming as a supporter of the Working Class. He was more a product of the Gilded Age.
If you get a job at a site and there is a Union, you join that Union. The decline of the Middle Class started with Raygun and the PATCO Union. That is a fact. You obviously would have taken Raygun's side and used the old "safety" canard. Bullshit! This road is hard and a lot of workers have sacrificed their lives for the 40 hr work week, vacations, seniority, etc. A lot of what you propose would only dilute the strength of Unions when we're at a time that they need to be strengthened. 'Nuff said.

[24601]

8. My avatar is TR - he busted trusts, not unions. I didn't vote for Reagan when I had the chance.

And my post made a distinction between endangering public safety verses convenience. Did you read that?

I don't threaten our children who are legally adults even though we pay the majority of their college costs. The parts we don't pay directly are their scholarships and work-study.

[wolfie001]

9. Are you sure? Looking at that pick I see a Dino from Buffalo.

Oh well, Teddy's one of the three Repubs I admire: the other two being Lincoln and Eisenhower. Sorry, but being a Union guy for 31 years and remembering what a hack Raygun was, I get a bit defensive. Hey, you're here at DU and bringing ideas from different angles is a good thing. Cheers

[24601]

10. You too - the hatchet is buried. n/t

[NonMetro]

12. Exactly!

When Republicans imposed "Right to Work" on the people of Michigan, nobody had asked for that. Nobody was protesting at the Capitol demanding "right to work". Nobody voted for anyone who campaigned on a promise to make Michigan a "right to work" state where the working people could become second class citizens. It was all done behind closed doors and then then dictated to the people of this state. It's an act of oppression, plain and simple.

[wolfie001]

13. Yes oh yes!!!

No more phony Dem triangulation on this issue!!! This is financial warfare from the 1% to the rest of us! Make no mistake!

[uawchild]

11. huh?

From your post : "The decision to unionize or not should not be because it is needed or not."

Why should need not be a rational basis on which to decide to unionize. I dare say, economic need and economic exploitation is a compelling reason too unionize. Labor unions' by definition, have a set agenda to improve the economic well being and physical safety of its members.

[appalachiablue]

4. Unions are democracy in the workplace. ~ Thom Hartmann.

Read the Report, 'Reviving Strong Unions', Robert A. Borosage.
http://ourfuture.org/report/reviving-strong-unions

[MindfulOne]

14. kick. (nt)