
Slate's Newly Unionized Writers and Editors Give OK to Strike - pgrote
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-11/slate-s-newly-unionized-writers-and-editors-give-ok-to-strike
======
ryanwaggoner
Interested to see how this plays out.

I'm a Slate Plus member, mainly for the extra segment on the Slate Political
Gabfest. Ironically, none of the three hosts of that show have worked at Slate
in years, which is probably a large part of what makes it enjoyable.

For reasons I'd be hard-pressed to explain, I listen to a number of other
Slate podcasts, even though I often find them irritating. Most (but not all)
Slate writers and hosts come across less like thoughtful journalists or
experts in their field, and more like college bloggers writing an angry screed
about how everything in the world is terrible.

There are a few exceptions, but not many. And I do enjoy hearing from the
_actual experts_ they have on the various podcasts.

Kind of looking forward to watching this group of clowns destroy their own
jobs.

~~~
woodpanel
> _like college bloggers writing an angry screed about how everything in the
> world is terrible._

In my country we seem to have this phenomenon for most of the established
media, even more so with newer news outlets.

I think of this as a problem for our society, because the repercussions from
the 'fourth-column' becoming this way are spilling over to the other three
columns: E.g. once clearly differential political parties reshape their
programs to align with what journalists want, lest for diminishing their
attack surface. The result is a parliament with parties distinguishable by
name only.

That creates huge vacuums in voter representation. Voters then turn to
alternative news sources and political parties, which by their nature are more
prone to be filled with/usurped by fringe extremists.

That in return leaves the repelled voters with increased attack surface and
thus even less chance to participate in the democratic process, making them
feel disenfranchised and ultimately not caring for what the "mainstream" says
- even if it is good, correct and in their interest.

Edit: Regarding the strike itself, I'm not aware of the situation at Slate,
but in general striking for me is an important tool of representation as well.

~~~
JBReefer
$10 you're talking about Germany

~~~
woodpanel
That's one Oktoberfest Maß for you ;-)

------
lucozade
Seems reasonable. Unionism hasn't historically been very successful outside of
monopolistic industries but digital media seems a good place to experiment.

Worst case it'll bankrupt a company that won't really be missed. Best case we
find a sustainable model for digital media. If I were a betting hominid, I'd
say the former is more likely than the latter but you never know.

~~~
throwaway427
Oh the former is definitely more likely in the long run and I don't think
anyone really minds.

In the short term I suspect they won't strike at all. NYC and DC rents are
expensive.

------
gammateam
Imagine how much us tech workers could make in a union

Can we deduct union dues? That 10% isnt looking too bad on a 200k comp package

The striking sounds exhausting though

~~~
asianthrowaway
Maybe we could strike from home on slack

------
sascha_sl
I'm very much irritated by how opposed HN seems to be to unions existing.

Not that I'm surprised at all. The "Hacker" in "Hacker News" never included
the anticapitalist and anarchist tendencies that are normally associated with
"Hacker" in Europe/Germany. But what should one expect from a site run by a VC
fund.

~~~
krapp
There are plenty of those anarchist and anticapitalist types around, though.
Watching the two groups fight it out is part of the fun of being here.

~~~
sascha_sl
Honestly I should really just block comment pages on HN. They never fail to
disappoint me.

------
CryptoPunk
There is no way unionized writers/editors are going to be impartial in their
political media coverage, given all of their leverage hinges on laws
restricting the contracting rights of their employer.

~~~
rexpop
None of their leverage hinges on laws. Laws are a caching layer for rights,
which are inalienable. Their leverage hinges on a capacity to organize one
another and express their interests.

~~~
umanwizard
> rights, which are inalienable

Says who?

~~~
briandear
John Locke.

~~~
pmyteh
His argument for _why_ they're inalienable is completely dependent on the
existence of (a particular conception of) God. I found reading the Second
Treatise of Government an eye-opening experience for this reason.

If we want an argument for the inalienability of natural/human rights that
works in a society with religious pluralism, I fear we'll need to look again.

~~~
User23
This is a fundamental ethical problem. Science and logic can't demonstrate
that rape and murder, just to give a couple examples, are wrong. In fact
science tells us that rape and murder are hunky-dory if they increase
biological fitness.

Any meaningful system of ethics is characteristically normative, which means
it rests on authority; divine authority is the highest form of authority that
can be thought of.

