Over the last few years, the New York Times ownership - through its editorial board - has supported, applauded and demanded efforts to force unions to happily shred contracts they negotiated and accept pay/benefits cuts (see here, and here for examples). Though the Times is billed as "liberal" for its positions on social issues, this anti-union stance has been part of its broader economic conservatism for years. And now, we see how that conservatism - at least with respect to union issues - may come from a more personal, self-interested place, rather than a principled ideological motive. Here's what I mean:
The New York Times Co. has threatened to shut The Boston Globe unless the newspaper's unions swiftly agree to $20 million in concessions, union leaders said yesterday. Executives from the Times Co. and Globe made the demands Thursday morning in an approximately 90-minute meeting with leaders of the newspaper's 13 unions, union officials said. The possible concessions include pay cuts [and] the end of pension contributions by the company...
Objectivity in corporate-owned journalism is a myth - every corporation has a subjective, highly biased and extremely personal/parochial interest in conservative economics. The Times editorializing in support of shredding union contracts at a time it is trying to shred its own union contracts is a perfect example of that larger truth.
