Ordinarily I'd take the side of labor. But there could exist times when unions make unreasonable/unfair demands. So - when those happen, then I'd take the side of management for outlasting the union.
pavlov•4h ago
Depends on how you end it? If the workers are satisfied, then it’s probably a positive negotiated outcome for everyone.
chrisg23•3h ago
We should talk about the details of this particular strike then.
I don't know anything so I'm just copying from wikipedia, they could have a bad analysis:
The 1975–1976 Washington Post pressmen's strike was a strike action by The Washington Post's pressmen. The strike began on October 1, 1975. The Washington Post hired replacement workers to replace the union in December 1975. The last unions supporting the pressmen's strike returned to work in February 1976.
And then from the "Aftermath and Impact" section:
The outcome of the strike was viewed as a victory for the Post and a defeat for the labor unions involved.[6][9] The Post was estimated to save $2 million in 1976 as a result of hiring non-union pressmen.[4]
On October 2, 1976, to commemorate the 1-year anniversary of the start of the strike, a crowd of over 1000 supporting the pressmen met at McPherson Square. They proceeded to the Post's headquarters, where they burned Graham in effigy.
This doesn't seem like the worker's thought it was positive for them.
BurningFrog•2h ago
The replacement workers probably thought it was positive.
jfengel•2h ago
Until they started wondering why their pay and benefits was worse than they people they replaced, and when the management would decide that they could be replaced by even cheaper workers.
thrance•3h ago
A lot of Americans have been tricked into thinking that worker's rights are a bad thing. The Washington Post, owned by none other than Jeff Bezos, greatly contributed to this sad state of affairs.
forrestthewoods•3h ago
I adore the idea that someone is so pro-union the only outcome they support is a perma-strike that results with no one having any jobs. Beautiful. Well done.
MOARDONGZPLZ•2h ago
To be fair, I think the implication was that there would be a class of folks whose jobs it was to create and then indefinitely prolong strikes, not that they should have no jobs.
n4r9•2h ago
A more even-handed interpretation might be that strikes are generally called for good reason.
JadeNB•1h ago
> I adore the idea that someone is so pro-union the only outcome they support is a perma-strike that results with no one having any jobs. Beautiful. Well done.
"Ended a strike" almost certainly does not mean, in this context, "made reasonable accommodations with the workers." There is a big difference between saying "the owner ended the strike" (probably a bad thing for workers' rights) versus "the workers ended the strike" (possibly a good thing for workers' rights), and it is clear that your parent comment was opposed to the former, not the latter.
tangus•2h ago
They provoked the strike on purpose by giving the workers an unacceptable contract. The aim was to wreck the union (they succeeded). They prepared in secret for two years for this.
She met Buffett herself, saw his genius, and made him her professor. He’d bring 20 annual reports to board meetings, teaching her line by line.
Yeah, uh, that's not all she did. She and Buffett apparently had a long-running (and public) affair, which in part led to Susan Buffett separating from him and moving to San Francisco.
mosferatu•2h ago
They leave things like these out to engage people like you, it’s a discussion generator.
wds•34m ago
What level of privilege do I have to reach to have falsehoods be labeled 'discussion generators'?
tptacek•8m ago
Which falsehood are you referring to?
tough•29m ago
I was wondering how one "made Buffett her professor" without him wanting to teach in the first place
tehjoker•5h ago
qntmfred•4h ago
chrisg23•4h ago
wyldfire•3h ago
pavlov•4h ago
chrisg23•3h ago
I don't know anything so I'm just copying from wikipedia, they could have a bad analysis:
The 1975–1976 Washington Post pressmen's strike was a strike action by The Washington Post's pressmen. The strike began on October 1, 1975. The Washington Post hired replacement workers to replace the union in December 1975. The last unions supporting the pressmen's strike returned to work in February 1976.
And then from the "Aftermath and Impact" section:
The outcome of the strike was viewed as a victory for the Post and a defeat for the labor unions involved.[6][9] The Post was estimated to save $2 million in 1976 as a result of hiring non-union pressmen.[4]
On October 2, 1976, to commemorate the 1-year anniversary of the start of the strike, a crowd of over 1000 supporting the pressmen met at McPherson Square. They proceeded to the Post's headquarters, where they burned Graham in effigy.
This doesn't seem like the worker's thought it was positive for them.
BurningFrog•2h ago
jfengel•2h ago
thrance•3h ago
forrestthewoods•3h ago
MOARDONGZPLZ•2h ago
n4r9•2h ago
JadeNB•1h ago
"Ended a strike" almost certainly does not mean, in this context, "made reasonable accommodations with the workers." There is a big difference between saying "the owner ended the strike" (probably a bad thing for workers' rights) versus "the workers ended the strike" (possibly a good thing for workers' rights), and it is clear that your parent comment was opposed to the former, not the latter.
tangus•2h ago
Here's an account: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wash-post-busted-pressmens-un...