Comments on: Gawker media staff push for unionisation

Gawker media staff push for unionisation

modernnomad — Thu, 16 Apr 2015 22:41:08 -0800

If the effort is successful, Gawker Media would be the first major online media company to unionise.

By: 99_

99_ — Thu, 16 Apr 2015 22:56:53 -0800

I think it's telling that HamNo, who is normally pretty solid on transparency is a little dodgy here: Gawker writing staff is trying to organize (by head count, probably less than 50% of the company). No indication that support staff or IT (mostly offshore) are getting any protections. I think it would be awesome if the editorial staff was helping an SEIU push at least for the stateside support staff, but I bet that's not in the works. Also curious to know about the status of the thinly traded (last person I know to try and write about this was Felix, and he basically said there was no way to price them, so I'm not going to flat out claim they can't be traded) options. Hamilton likely has them, but I'm betting it's either the frustration of being unable to price their options or the simple removing that as a benefit that led to this. edit: clarified 'thinly traded'

By: figurant

figurant — Thu, 16 Apr 2015 23:36:34 -0800

I wouldn't worry about slight class distinctions. I suspect this will be put down with the legal equivalent of a flamethrower.

By: emptythought

emptythought — Thu, 16 Apr 2015 23:38:15 -0800

I hope that when it is, it reminds everyone how shit gawker really is and quiets down some of the "but they do good stuff sometimes!!1!"

By: fallingbadgers

fallingbadgers — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 00:33:37 -0800

Let's not forget Metafilter Local 47 - "Agitate, Educate, Orga... ooh, a cat riding a Segway"

By: Mezentian

Mezentian — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 00:57:27 -0800

There is power in a union. Get on that, Gawker folk. Young kids might realise unionising is a good thing.

By: eriko

eriko — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 02:29:43 -0800

You won't believe why these writers are on strike!

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 02:33:26 -0800

I think it's telling that HamNo, who is normally pretty solid on transparency... I'm sorry for my ignorance. This writer is significant enough to merit an abbreviation? I'm not being snarky or anything. I've just never heard of Nolan. Is he something beyond being a random Gawker writer? A big shot there? (I don't really go to Gawker unless I am linked to it. Nothing moral or anything. Just not on my list.)

By: hal_c_on

hal_c_on — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 02:59:13 -0800

So why do we want to unionize? I cannot speak for everyone, but for me, these are the motivations: Rookie move.

By: josher71

josher71 — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 03:29:42 -0800

Rookie move. Can you clarify what you mean by that?

By: strangely stunted trees

strangely stunted trees — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 04:51:34 -0800

I hope that when it is, it reminds everyone how shit gawker really is and quiets down some of the "but they do good stuff sometimes!!1!" Funny, my reaction was "My god, if they're successful at unionizing, I wouldn't be able to hate Gawker quite so intensely! How awful." I'm not sure which of us that makes the optimist and which the pessimist.

By: um

um — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 05:19:12 -0800

> Rookie move. Can you clarify what you mean by that? "So why do we want to unionize? I cannot speak for everyone, but for me, these are the motivations!" "..." "When do we want it?" "NOW!"

By: Drexen

Drexen — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 06:02:23 -0800

Good luck to 'em!

By: themadthinker

themadthinker — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 06:53:56 -0800

Kind of interesting timing. Gawker's also in the middle of a class action suit for using unpaid interns for full staff responsibilities. Probably a coincidence, but it is curious that this is happening while the body corporate is being brought to task for misuse of unpaid labor.

By: Joseph Gurl

Joseph Gurl — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 07:06:53 -0800

Go Gawker writers! I mean, how fair is it for people to write thousands upon thousands of words, paying others' salaries in the process via ad revenue, and not being compensated fairl...oh shit.

By: Joseph Gurl

Joseph Gurl — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 07:07:07 -0800

(I keed...)

By: Alexandra Kitty

Alexandra Kitty — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 07:10:39 -0800

I hope that when it is, it reminds everyone how shit gawker really is and quiets down some of the "but they do good stuff sometimes!!1!" It's just cheap filler anyone could write. Web sites are the modern day sweatshops and the writers are the expendable grunt workers. You may have the degree and even the talent, but you are to write disposable dreck to an audience who just wants a diversion right then and there until the next click. I am of two minds. Corporations have lobby groups and that is their version of a union, but unions have not kept up with the strategy of the times, and if you have a lousy union rep, it's useless. Unions are not a salvation and it's time for a more effective and aggressive form of worker protection. I wish them well, but it is not going to solve their problems because the balance of power is already way out of whack.

By: Potomac Avenue

Potomac Avenue — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 07:37:09 -0800

Follow up in the Wapo about why this is likely to be pretty successful, at least internally.

By: 99_

99_ — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 08:34:25 -0800

I'm sorry for my ignorance. This writer is significant enough to merit an abbreviation? That's how he's referred to on the site -- don't know if that passes muster for 'significant.' He's the longest tenured writer on Gawker proper; probably pretty high up in the seniority overall.

By: Rustic Etruscan

Rustic Etruscan — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 08:49:28 -0800

Web sites are the modern day sweatshops and the writers are the expendable grunt workers.

By: looli

looli — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 08:54:28 -0800

No indication that support staff or IT (mostly offshore) are getting any protections. I think it would be awesome if the editorial staff was helping an SEIU push at least for the stateside support staff, but I bet that's not in the works. I can't speak for Gawker staff, of course, but I work for an NGO where the researchers and writers (etc.) are unionized, as are the administrative staff (different unions). We pushed our employer to contract in the cleaning staff (they are already in SEIU) and now that they are in, we are pushing to have them be at the common bargaining table with the two other unions, which we hope will increase their wages and get them into our pension plan. We've been unionized a long time and getting the workers contracted in was a long, long process (that began before I started here 8 years ago) and it required our stakeholders/constituents to demand it of the board of directors. But the fact is, having part of the workforce unionized and not all isn't ideal, because workers can still be played off each other to undercut wages, etc. in that scenario. Once the unionization ball gets rolling, it gets easier to get everyone in. And of course, the more cynical side of me says that unions are always looking to increase their dues-paying members, and organizing the second half of a workplace is easier than going out and finding a new one to organize.

By: showbiz_liz

showbiz_liz — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 09:07:45 -0800

I didn't pursue a career in journalism because I could see I'd never make a decent living doing it this century. I really, really hope this works.

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 11:10:10 -0800

Look for the union <label/> International Union of Spam, Clickbait, and Listicle Workers?

By: Room 641-A

Room 641-A — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 11:52:13 -0800

Look for the union It's hard to believe that this commercial was so common that the song was as well-known as any jingle for fast food or hot dogs. I guess I was too young to know at the time, but was it even the slightest bit as "controversial" as it would be today?

By: 4ster

4ster — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:21:47 -0800

Personally, I'm waiting for Buzzfeed Local 101 and the HuffPo Workers Union: "23 Ways to Know its Time to Unionize." "She Didn't Believe in Unions Until THIS Happened!"

By: sciatrix

sciatrix — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:27:49 -0800

Unions are not a salvation and it's time for a more effective and aggressive form of worker protection. I wish them well, but it is not going to solve their problems because the balance of power is already way out of whack. ....such as? I mean, it's not like governmental protections are going to happen without some aggressive shifts in public opinion and power shifts. How do you propose this new, more effective form of worker protection get rolling? Honest question.

By: Lemurrhea

Lemurrhea — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 14:12:52 -0800

Yeah, a union at its core is just the workers saying "we need a united front to interact with the single front of the business." that need never goes away. My pet peeve is how the professional classes (tech & lawyers, for my personal knowledge) went the route of thinking they didn't need unions due to their expertise and guilding. And then their labour got devalued and exploited. Whoever could have guessed.

By: Iax

Iax — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 22:32:09 -0800

Or in an area where there are two company's in the same industry/job and one has union, the employees at the other one will all be like, why have a union, we have the same benefits and privileges they do, ect. They don't stop to think why they have the same benefits.

By: Grease

Grease — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 11:28:37 -0800

Unions are very costy, and they can very realistically end up with a bankruptcy. You can't have a job, unionized or not, if the company no longer exists....

By: Etrigan

Etrigan — Sun, 19 Apr 2015 13:23:01 -0800

Unions are very costy, and they can very realistically end up with a bankruptcy. You can't have a job, unionized or not, if the company no longer exists.... Oh, the Wall Street banks were unionized? The hundreds, nay, thousands of other tech startups were unionized? The fifty-plus percent of all small businesses that fail in their first three years -- those are just the unionized ones?