Why? Because it's cheaper! I recall them not having a very positive editorial when Boing decided to give jobs to their non-union plant in South Carolina instead of the union one in Washington. Too funny.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/business...times.html?_r=1

The New York Times News Service will lay off at least 25 editorial employees next year and will move the editing of the service to a Florida newspaper owned by The New York Times Company, the newspaper and the Newspaper Guild said Thursday......The plan for the news service calls for The Gainesville Sun, whose newsroom is not unionized and has lower salaries, to take over editing and page design. Ms. McNulty said new jobs would be created at The Sun to handle the work.

Newspapers will eventually outsource to foreign workers as well to stay afloat. Bits and bytes travel well.

I'm 20. What's a newspaper?

So they had an editorialist write a pro-union piece and now the times management, which is probably far, far removed from that, must only hire union workers.

 

Another amazing post.

Unions are one of the greatest blessings, and one of the greatest curses, of the American economic structure.

So they had an editorialist write a pro-union piece and now the times management, which is probably far, far removed from that, must only hire union workers.

 

Another amazing post.

 

Yeah, a newspaper allowing dissenting opinions to be published. That's terrible. Thankfully, proper conservative newspapers would not allow dissenting opinions to be published.

Yeah, a newspaper allowing dissenting opinions to be published. That's terrible. Thankfully, proper conservative newspapers would not allow dissenting opinions to be published.

Tex, if the paper had an editorialist write an editorial AGAINST unions, THAT would be a dissenting opinion.

So they had an editorialist write a pro-union piece and now the times management, which is probably far, far removed from that, must only hire union workers.

 

Another amazing post.

You write that as if it was one, and only one, pro-union piece that has ever graced the pages of the NYT. How silly.

Tex, if the paper had an editorialist write an editorial AGAINST unions, THAT would be a dissenting opinion.

I are not understand.

Yeah, a newspaper allowing dissenting opinions to be published. That's terrible. Thankfully, proper conservative newspapers would not allow dissenting opinions to be published.

 

 

Yeah we never see Clarence Paige or Garrison Keillor weekly in the conservative Tribune, or Thomas Frank's weekly column in the WSJ.

You write that as if it was one, and only one, pro-union piece that has ever graced the pages of the NYT. How silly.

 

Yeah, there have been. It wouldn't change my point, that the original post's point is stupid. Are we to understand that a newspaper's ownership and management not only endorses, but practices every editorial message they publish? And then, so, is Bill Krystal pro-union?

Yeah, there have been. It wouldn't change my point, that the original post's point is stupid. Are we to understand that a newspaper's ownership and management not only endorses, but practices every editorial message they publish? And then, so, is Bill Krystal pro-union?

 

Then people need to STFU about what Fox practices outside of the newsroom.

Then people need to STFU about what Fox practices outside of the newsroom.

 

Fine. But I don't even know an example of what you are talking about?

Fine. But I don't even know an example of what you are talking about?

It involves falafel, I believe.

Tex, if the paper had an editorialist write an editorial AGAINST unions, THAT would be a dissenting opinion.

 

No, they allowed a pro union editorial while they themselves were anti-union. Sounds like allowing a dissenting opinion to appear. How would a anti-union newspaper printing an anti-union editorial, be a dissenting opinion?

Yeah we never see Clarence Paige or Garrison Keillor weekly in the conservative Tribune, or Thomas Frank's weekly column in the WSJ.

 

exactly, and thank you for pointing that out

 

But that doesn't seem to even raise an eyebrow . . .