Sounds like a humane employer. He could not make the paper pay so he shut it down {with exit packages that make us all want to work for billionaires].
The threat of unionization has cost more newspaper jobs than ever were gained. But the union bosses still make theirs.
3
For DNAinfo and Gothamist, the staff’s vote to join the Writers Guild of America East was just part of the decision to close the company...The decision puts 115 people out of work..."
Not "the" decision, but "their" decision put them out of work. It's a business, not a charity.
Welcome to the real world, which comes without safe spaces.
2
What am I missing? Ricketts owned the company. He purchased it with HIS money. He risked HIS money to purchase a media property in an era when media properties are shuttering every day. He expected a return on HIS investment of HIS money, but HIS company was not returning what he required for HIS investment. He employed people. Unfortunately, some weren’t very smart. They wanted a union, which, by design, would threaten to slow or shut HIS business if HE didn’t make further investments of HIS money that would further reduce HIS return on HIS investment. They did this with incredible blindness, or willful disregard to the current state of their very own industry, not to mention trends in the economy. I am a proud, liberal, Democrat who is Pro-Union, and Pro-Strike when it makes sense, but c’mon… these aren’t coal workers being subjected to black lung every day. These aren’t automobile workers or plumbers or carpenters who risk injuries every day. They’re not cops or firefighters who literally face death every day. If they wanted higher wages, they should have made themselves indispensable, earned employment elsewhere, or offered to purchase the company from Mr. Ricketts. After risking HIS money for years, struggling to build a successful media company against all odds, why would he want to continue the risky investments, if the company were filled with business people who don’t understand business, but somehow felt entitled, and worse, felt it was right to threaten him?
19
I've been pro union all my life, I joined the first ever teaching assistants union at UW - Madison and picketed for a month in February in Wisconsin (demonstrating we truly were academics, unburdened with common sense)
But the fact is, the billionaire is free to pick up his marbles and stop playing the game at any time, particularly if it's a money losing hobby.
The underlying issue is the massive redistribution of wealth in our country, that leads to the 99.9% existing to serve and amuse the 0.1%. It shows up in uncountable ways throughout society, from the healthcare "debate" to "tax reform" to the coming attempts to dismantle SS and Medicare.
Until we return the wealth and income distribution to what it was pre-Reagan, all attempts at social equity are doomed.
8
Actions have consequences, a fact some have yet to understand.
12
Y'all need to get over the idea (ology) that unions are for the working man in America today. Maybe once upon a time but no more. Their goal is political control. What kind of independent journalist are you if you belong to a union that gives you instructions on how to do your job, what to write, what slant to put on a story, etc, etc?
6
A billionaire who is committed to the importance of news and journalism would factor it in that this business model will not make money... and continue to support it. A billionaire that tells you he thought a digital newspaper in 2017 would be profitable is lying. Billionaire owner of TD Ameritrade and a major Republican donor, who donated millions to 45's campaign is simply shutting down the network of local publications to chip away at the dissemination of information. Sounds much like the propoganda ministry in Germany.
8
Ricketts embodies everything that is evil in America. Money = power. Well, Mr. Ricketts you may be rich but your soul is bankrupt. I wouldn't give you a glass of water if you were dying in the desert.
11
Why can't the union reorganize themselves and evolve into a cooperative of writers co-owned and managed by its members? It would make sense given their liberal agenda... Jmtc.
7
Well, if it was a bad business move no doubt the former employees can just start up an equivalent business, right?
16
Unionization was a power grab and a risky bet.
The bet was that the owner, who balanced the psychic and civic gains from the websites against the constant financial cost, would overlook the loss of status and control and also overlook the potential hassle and cost of dealing with a union.
The law left the owner no choice but to accept the union or shut down the company. Unfortunately, the law designed to help workers hurt them badly. And the reporters learned a painful lesson in the law of unintended consequences.
In a freer country, there could be contracts to prevent unionization, or there could be less powerful and disruptive forms of unions. But as it is, over the decades the power that the law gives to unions has made them so undesirable that they are being driven to near extinction. Unintended consequences.
As a user, I'm sorry about the loss suffered by both the owner and the reporters. But I'm much more sorry about the loss of an important civic portal. a loss caused because ideological biases, and a self-defeating law designed to give power to labor prevented the cooperation necessary to allow these important websites to continue.
Perhaps someday we will have a labor law that is less coercive and more aligned with the world live in. But here, I blame the structure of our labor law for this tragedy.
15
Well done Mr Rickets.
American unions, unlike most of those in Europe, are anti-business.
9
Unions make more sense in an industry where results can be tested and quantified. Journalism is an occupation in which judging results is more a matter of opinion and taste. I wouldn't want to deal with a union in that business either.
8
My great grandfather came to the US from Germany in 1888, and got a job as a "bakery superintendent" according to the St. Louis Gould's directory in 1895. He lasted less than three years there. From 1901 until at least 1906 the company he worked for was sued by what eventually became the AFL/CIO for firing any worker who attempted to join a union or who would not tear up a union leaflet and step on the shreds while swearing never to engage in any union organizing activities.
2
I hope every reader who reads this article, is a paid subscriber to the NYT.
The erosion of journalism is OUR fault, not that of anyone else.
9
This is not only about Ricketts's failed business model, it's about the efforts of the oligarchs and Trumpists to control and shut down the news. Local news is a target because, to paraphrase Tip O'Neill, all news is local.
11
This article states that DNAinfo lost money every month since its inception. This means that Ricketts was basically subsidizing these journalists livelihoods on a losing business, yet he continued to do it - at a loss. His only seeming demand was there be no union. They unionized. The man who has been paying them, at no profit of his own, decided to end the venture. How is that heartless exactly? After he was employing and paying people for his personal sake of losing money? Ricketts figured, as Falstaff says "and figo for they friendship". In such a scenario the man is blameless. Sorry, kids.
15
Just as the workers had the right to join a union, Ricketts had the right to shut the sites down. The workers, if they thought working there was so bad could've left and found better jobs. Instead they tried to hire someone to force the owner to give them what they wanted regardless of if the company could afford it. So, for all their efforts they get the right to find new employment. The employees tried to strong arm him and he decided it wasn't worth it, well within his right. This should serve as a lesson to those employees, things could always be worse.
12
An organizing drive at an indisputably struggling (and possibly insolvent) business in a troubled market segment with an owner who has clearly communicated that a union would lead to closure. Hard as it might be to accept, it's not always the right time to organize. The employees merely wanted to obtain bargaining strength, but it was up to the organizers to identify and communicate the risks, and not to oversell. I'd say the union has more explaining to do than the owner.
9
What person in their right mind will cater to a union's demands when the organization itself is not profitable? The workers were lucky to have a paid job when they were not even turning a profit. They tried to push for more & in doing so made a bad decision.
13
I see lots of whining about how horrible it what Ricketts did was. But if the publications were actually viable, the employees should band together and start something else that does the same thing and share the profits, and if they want to they can unionize and if the business continues to thrive they'll disprove Ricketts. I'm pretty sure they won't. In Ricketts's place I likely would do the same thing because if I was already losing money unionization would just add that many hours to my job dealing with union issues that I need to make the company profitable - putting aside the additional cost.
28
Mr. Ricketts' businesses did not succeed because adjustments were not made to make them competitive in the fierce world of journalism and media. He does have a blog and in September, he wrote about why he does not like unions. As with most owners, he cites that they come between ownership and the employees. The real reason owners do not like unions is because they provide the rank and file with attorney's and agents. Everyone else in the workplace world would not do business without them. Yet owners feel they get in the way. So again, here he have people who want to compete in the workplace on a level playing field, and ownership cannot have that. Is there any wonder why his businesses did not make money?
6
Can't make a profit if you pay living wages and provide benefits? Maybe you should go out of business. More likely, you are simply trying to scare workers everywhere away from unions in general, like in the 1930s ...so maybe it's better for everyone that you do go out of business. Are no profits really better than some profits? Actually, 20% of something really is better that 100% of nothing ...if you don't realize that, then you really do deserve to go out of business.
6
Uh, that's what he's doing. He's taking your advice. Of course, his going out of business leave 115 people to look somewhere else for that so-called "living wage".
5
Genuine journalists should not be only working for these fatcats with political biases.
Study how Democracy Now has been doing it for decades. Amy Goodman would never answer to some slanted rich owner.
Workers who sign on to companies run by right-wing anti-worker fatcats always risk their Atlas shrugging if they try to be anything other than wage-slaves.
There are other ways to organise an enterprise. See Naomi Klein's 'The Take'. Fire the fatcats.
6
I’m taking my ball and I’m going home.
2
Shutting down Gothamist and DNA has significant impact on reporting of NYC tenant issues, rent protection, landlord harassment, loss of affordable housing, land use issues and development issues.
At this point, there is no regular and accessible news source that reports on these critical concerns.
This is a big win for developers and landlord groups....
10
Billionaire founder? Editorializing. Report the story and don't income identify someone.
5
I knew DNAinfo was struggling and wondering where the money was coming from to keep trying in the expensive online media game. I didn't know the founder of Ameritrade was behind it. I think it was important to state his worth. For someone else this would have been his passion or his job. For Ricketts it might have been a toy to experiment with like the Cubs. He won on some of his gambles.
5
When said Billionaire is known to be a anti-union conservative it matters.
4
Poor little, gteeedy billionaire wants everything his way. He’s that selfish and destructive that he’s for traitorous tRumpy and against Unions it’s time for me to research brokerage firms and take all three of my accounts out of TD Ameritrade. I will not support such a despicable billionaire.
4
It's "journalism"...liars get fired everyday. Journalism in this country has become such a joke I have no pity or respect for any of these terrorists. The ms media since the last election is responsible for the division and hatred in this country. They have caused the shooting of a US Congressman, authorities to stand by why radical Left Supremacy groups suppress our rights and law enforcement stands down while they cause riots and destroy private property. The chickens are coming home to roost. They were trained by Obama and funded by a genocidal maniac George Soros. How's it working for you?
3
Unionize Unionize Unionize. Now take your union and your collective assets and start up your own news organization. Crowd Fund. Blast the world with your ideas and your knowledge. Bring it on!!!
HOORAY FOR COLLECTIVE ACTION!!!
3
It's strange how many here complain that a person has shut down his unprofitable business, somehow expecting that he owes anyone anything.
They unionized. Generally, employees don't unionize unless they want more than what they're getting, which means a greater loss to the business owner, in this case.
I suppose that when people are programmed to believe that what is theirs is theirs, and what's mine is theirs too, you get comments like we see here.
"He's scapegoating unions!"
"He disrespects his employees!"
"He's lazy and runs his business poorly!"
Typical reactionary views that are totally outside the realm of truth, the truth being that he was losing money, tried hard to get the business profitable, and then, after yet another roadblock- unionization, he threw his hands up and said, "I'm putting my money to better use elsewhere, instead of treating this as a charitable endeavor".
Sounds good to me. He has no obligation to throw money at an unprofitable business with employees who were ungrateful that he hung in there for as long as he did. Did you think that he just closed the doors without looking for a buyer to recoup at least some of his losses? Of course he did. He's not stupid. It just happens to be that nobody wanted it, much less, after the employees unionized. I see nobody here who, being geniuses, decided to buy Ricketts out.
14
Reading the article, it seemed just another story about the difficulty that all news organizations are having these days making money using traditional business models. However, the author couldn't resist an irrelevant title that turned a business article into more political fodder for the culture wars. Was that really necessary? Can't you guys just report the news without inserting propaganda?
6
Adam Smith: Undefeated since 1776!
4
There are scabs who cross picket lines out of desperation and there are scabs like Ricketts who cause the desperation in the first place.
3
The esprit de corps Ricketts wants are wage slaves hoping for a few crumbs after he fleeces the business for his grandeur.
4
Billionaires versus those who work for a living -- or try to -- whose gonna win? This is why cannibal capitalism does!
3
There appears to be a string of comments which are too similar to be coincidental. Makes me think there are active trolls employed to shut down any voice of reason. if so this isn't a shooting war but it is a silencing one
6
Oh well, go start your own news site and see how much you want some union telling you what to do.
5
"“...unions promote a corrosive us-against-them dynamic that destroys the esprit de corps businesses need to succeed.”
In which we see the 21st Century manifestation of the 19th Century's plantation-owner's mindset. All they want to hear back from the peons is, "Yessuh, Boss, yessuh!"
8
Wonderful news! Gothamist in particular was a source of untrammeled drivel. I was aghast at the brain workings of the so-called liberals who posted there.
5
Put down the thesaurus and say something meaningful. Using lots of adjectives doesn't prove that you're intelligent.
3
I can't believe that people are putting the blame on Ricketts for not wanting to run a business that loses money. Anyone that owns a company knows that unions are an impediment to trying to create a profit in most cases and these sites were already losing money. You can't just expect the guy to suck it up and keep going with this. Unions rarely ask for compromise.
7
Ricketts is a union busting terrorist. The only motivation here was to freak out journalists who want to unionize. Just watch, Ricketts will start a new NYC reporting site when the dust settles.
Unfortunately, now that the NLRB has two new Trump appointees, good luck with any unfair labor practice filing at the NLRB.
3
Hey! and I’m closing my TDAmeritrade account...
2
So far in this thread, that makes four of you.
The greedier the rich, the madder the poor. If Joe Ricketts wants to turn the United States into a banana republic, he's going to end up with banana republic revolutions. scarcity>greed>rebellion> collapse.
5
America, land of the free.
I am DEVASTATED!!! Can NYT pick up the slack in the extremely-local news department? Can you hire some of the journalists from Gothamist/DNAInfo? I don't think I'm supposed to use coarse language in the comments section, but I'm really despising Joe Ricketts right now.
2
Another Republican snowflake, afraid of a few union members.
5
For shame!
Real smart guys. Vote to unionize at a company barely able to keep the lights on. You guys can't all be that smart if none of you saw this coming.
10
"All the news that's profitable to print"
3
All of you who do not approve of Mr. Ricketts decision; Join forces and start your own money losing on-line publication.
See how long you will last.
9
Yes, Joe.
It is your ball.
But is doesn't mean you just wreck the game when they score on you.
What a rich little baby you are.
2
Well, that will teach the slaves everywhere to not try to organize themselves.
4
Labour leader Clement Attlee's words seem relevant now: "I entirely agree that people should have the greatest freedom compatible with the freedom of others. There was a time when employers were free to work little children for sixteen hours a day. I remember when employers were free to employ sweated women workers on finishing trousers at a penny halfpenny a pair. There was a time when people were free to neglect sanitation so that thousands died of preventable diseases. For years every attempt to remedy these crying evils was blocked by the same plea of freedom for the individual. It was in fact freedom for the rich and slavery for the poor. Make no mistake, it has only been through the power of the State, given to it by Parliament, that the general public has been protected against the greed of ruthless profit-makers and property owners."
1
Don't know about elsewhere, but here in NYC, DNAinfo was riddled with errors and slipshod reporting.
I once found 5 factual errors in a three paragraph story. Their gross inadequacy did harm to people.
One of their "reporters" contacted me about a building in this community that simply did not exist. I said she should go look at the location for herself. Seemed like simple Reporting 101. But I got the astounding reply that she could not go out to look at things without first requesting and receiving permission from her editor.
DNAinfo was an appalling mishmash of misinformation and now I see why. It was just a billionaire's vanity affair.
Glad it is gone.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
2
That Patch stuff about making money is a LIE. I know first-hand what a failure -- journalistically as well as financially -- that site is, so...
Want to see what a great, cutting edge local news site looks like, visit: http://escondidograpevine.com
That's
http://escondidograpevine.com
This is flat out illegal.
1
A really good reason to root against the Cubs. I used to like them & hate the Dodgers. Now I'm really happy the Dodgers sent them packing.
Everything this guy Ricketts is involved in should be boycotted by anybody who'd like to see the revival of the American working class.
That's right, journalists are workers. Capitalists are not.
5
I'll miss DNAInfo a lot - it was one of the few sources left for well written, non-salacious local news. The NYT only covers macro NYC stories; the Daily News and the NYPost have a sensationalist bent. It's as though the locals in NYC and local news don't matter. How to find out what my city councilman is doing? How to find out zoning changes affecting my neighborhood? Nowhere....
4
“DNAinfo is, at the end of the day, a business, and businesses need to be economically successful if they are to endure.”
This is something all workers of every stripe better learn. If workers are ever to get a square deal from their employers they had better fight and fight hard for the unions because no one else cares. The Democrats long ago threw the unions under the bus and the republicans will drive over their remains. The other thing that workers ought to remember (if they were ever taught this) this is capitalism. Workers are expendable. You'd think workers would see this and see it clearly. They didn't. They'd rather have watched Donald Trump scream "You're fired" on their tv screens. I think it's about time that everyone wake up before Donald Trump gives Joe Ricketts another billion dollars.
2
Are we forgetting that it was Mr. Ricketts who created DNAinfo in the first place, and he was spending millions of his own dollars to keep it afloat? I don't want to live in a world where you aren't allowed to close down your own company even if it is losing money, or where you have to keep paying people after they are no longer working because the company doesn't exist. The timing of the decision does seem like it was just his way of sending a message to the unions and it is unfortunate that people have to suffer because of it, but it is his company and he has the right to close it if he wants. I hope most of the reporters are talented and can find work elsewhere, but that is difficult given the reasons mentioned in the article. Despite the unsavory manner in which he closed the company, we should still be grateful he kept it running for as long as he did.
8
We are in an existential moment for unions, workers, even work. When this last happened, during the Great Depression, workers and their nascent organizations found political champions in the Democratic Party and FDR. And what followed those New Deal worker protection policies was the period that saw the greatest migration of citizens upward into the middle class in history. Most corporations provided pensions and health coverage for their employees; corporate taxes comprised a much larger portion of the tax base; and, many more industries were much more regulated for broader societal purposes than is now the case. And the “bottom line” had to do with product, not stock price. It was the premier era of income security for working families. But we have no champions now. The Democrats must find the guts to make income security and economic equity their prime message, and then back it up with laws and policy when, or if, they ever regain power. If not, then our descendants can thank us as they live with little work and no rights in a billionaire plutocracy.
4
It sounds like you want to make America great again!
5
He's right about unions. They are remnants of the worldwide Communist movement to take over. We had a union at my federal workplace and there were dozens of union 'agitators' milling around talking to their co-workers (?), playing the union game but not getting anything done. They didn't do any work. They just talked the talk in conspiratorial tones and obstructed others who were trying to get anything accomplished. That union obstructionist mentality was a legitimate threat to national security and that's why management restructured the agency and got rid of the union.
So what is the Writer's Guild going to do for their new "members" who just lost their jobs? Tell their other members to go on strike? Call for a slow down on production, tell the membership to call in sick? Get more of their membership fired?
One boss is bad enough. Accepting two bosses fighting at cross purposes is a useless activity that makes life more difficult for everyone.
8
“Mr Ricketts, a conservative who supported [so-called] President Trump… argued that ‘unions promote a corrosive us-against-them dynamic that destroys the esprit de corps businesses need to succeed.’”
Nonsense.
The European model, in which unions and management often work in tandem to improve the operations of their firms for all stakeholders (including customers, employees, management, and ownership), both disproves this, and reveals the nature of both this assertion, and its author.
It is a self-fulfilling fallacy, and another projection by yet another conservatard who, just like his preferred candidate, places the blame for his failures everywhere but on himself.
THESE are the people that our so-called President and the billionaires’ tools in the Congress now want to enrich, empower, and reward even further.
Trump Chumps, you of course will be crowing about the come-uppance of these greedy, uppity workers who dared to try to better their situations in a failing firm. Hope you’re happy now that what could, in better hands, have become a successful enterprise is no more.
Will you be happy when you’ve remade the whole country into the desolations of Kansas, Wisconsin, and other 3rd-world red states?
And when your billionaire masters have shut down all of those ventures whose workers dare to organize in the wealthier, more productive, and more labor-friendly blue states, who’s going to be paying the bills to cover your deficit-drowning red state catastrophes, hm?
2
Unions are an anachronism. Tell me what protections journalists need? Is the news room hazardous, or are they simply trying to gain leverage for more pay? If higher wages mean fewer jobs, and eventually zero jobs, why support a union? Steelworkers in Pittsburgh traded higher-paying jobs for fewer of them in Pittsburgh because they made themselves too expensive compared to the rest of the world.
5
This isn't just about unions and profits, it's about democratic institutions and worker enfranchisement. Remember that while governor, Ricketts' brother Pete launched a fundamentally dishonest plebiscite - based on false information about capital punishment - to reverse a deeply personal vote by the Nebraska legislature to abolish capital punishment. It was an act of arrogant dismissal of elected officials in favor or mob rule. Like the Mercers, the Ricketts family is pursuing an extreme conservative agenda to disempower workers, legislators and anyone else who might oppose their vision of democratic institutions.
4
"Patch, a network of hyperlocal news sites that started two years before DNAinfo in 2007, is one relatively bright spot on the local-news landscape." New York Times reporters seem to have no idea that there are several hundred hyperlocal for-profit and not-for-profit news organizations out there. Many are members of LIONs Publishers, an organization of Local Independent Online News Publishers http://www.lionpublishers.com/, throughout the country, filling the news deserts that were abandoned so long ago by our dead tree predecessors.
Many of these publishers bring decades of journalism experience to fill a need in their communities. They work hard and are jacks and jills of all trades, reporting, editing, shooting photos, selling and designing ads and managing their bottom lines. They are growing and while they may not be growing as fast as a Wall Street investor would want, they are growing at a steady pace.
The real bright spot in today's journalism field are these folks.
I speak as the publisher and editor of one of these publications: The Chester (VT) Telegraph. http://www.chestertelegraph.org/
1
Typical billionaire move. It's time for ALL writers of every kind everywhere to unionize and push back against the absurd assumption that journalism is something anybody who can put two words together can do. In a country drowning in fantasy, distraction, and hype (er, excuse me... 'marketing') talented writers who can report the truth are more necessary than ever, and they should be paid accordingly.
2
Really, were these people this ignorant? This wasn't the gov't where political hacks can use the taxpayers money indiscriminately, and wantonly; unaccountable for how much money is squandered. This is a business, and if your NOT MAKING MONEY, asking for another layer of people to pay for (unions, whose management MAKES TONS OF CASH), along with increased demands for insurance, and salaries was a RIDICULOUS request. I think we need, along with fiscal & personal responsibility classes taught in highschool, business operations classes. Because these people, who are supposed to be giving us insight, have such a fundamental LACK of understanding of economics, its incredulous. Hopefully, they weren't reporting on anything like, say, budgets, finance, anything in which they have NO COMPREHENSION of. Wow, and DUH.
7
“The decision by the editorial team to unionize is simply another competitive obstacle making it harder for the business to be financially successful.” This translates as "In order to make this business model work, we need to pay a sub-standard wage and benefits". The whole thing was a house of cards
4
Clearly, this is a retaliation move by Mr. Ricketts. Otherwise, the writers archives with their work would have not been destroyed as well. Another sad excuse for a business leader that would rather bolt than bargain with the very employees that make the company what it is.
3
America the Pitiful is just a step away
From busting all the unions that get in the rich man’s way.
Like some feudal baron who thinks vassals are his right,
He punishes employees with his monetary might.
Guilds and labor unions are now under vicious siege
By the Lords of Wall Street who prefer noblesse oblige.
But trusting to the whims of plutocrats has never yet
Provided common workers with a decent safety net.
If you are considering a union membership
Just remember you are angling for that old pink slip.
The rich don’t have a union -- not as far as I can see.
But you can bet they all belong to this conspiracy!
1
They are getting three months of paid “administrative leave” at full salary, plus four weeks of severance.......that does not say cold and heartless to me , show it was a difficult decision he had to make
6
In the end, Ricketts billions are just #'s in some computer somewhere. All but a couple million benefit no one, including Ricketts himself - his actual living expenses. Instead of spreading the rest around, he sends those #'s to a computer in the Caymans, whereever. Just like the Walton klan, and the rest of the 2%'ers. One day the power will go out, and those #'s will evaporate like smoke. Their potential to help others will be gone. And Ricketts, like the rest of the 2%ers will be gleaning what used to be the corn and wheatfields of America, wondering why, when he had the chance, he didn't pay writers more than they were worth, the janitor, everyone he could possibly have assisted with all that wealth.
8
I love the fact that they voted to unionize. We’re told it might affect the business and now complain. What universe does the alt left in. Ask Soros. Ask Weinstein’s your ex liberal idol. Ask wealthy Hrc $200000 talks. Bill $500000 illegal uranium talks or Obama’s $200000 talks Booyah
2
If you ever doubted that democracy "of the people, by the people, and for the people," was in danger, this should convince you.
11
Those experience journos should start their own news Web sites, and invite the union in as their partner!
9
Or they could find a billionaire or two that actually feel democracy is important and that employees deserve respect.
1
I had never visited either of the news sites that were shut down, so I can't comment on the quality, etc. But to all the folks exclaiming "OMG, IT WAS MY FAVORITE SITE!!!", how much did you pay to read all of these great stories? Did all of you disable your adblockers when visiting the sites?
I'm not trying to be all high and mighty here, but I PAY to read stories on NYT.com, I PAY for another national newspaper, I PAY to read my hometown newspaper (even though I haven't lived there in over 20 years), I also support a news org in my home state that recently converted to non-profit status. There are other news/journos that I subscribe to, but I won't bore you.
It's funny, none of us would think to pick up a newspaper at the store and take it home without paying, but we all demand "internet" news to be free. Put your money where your mouth is, folks...
For the record, I'm not anti-union, nor am I pro-Ricketts. And also for the record, I'm not made of money. I took the money from my cancelled smartphone and cancelled cable bills to spend on what *I* determined to be worthwhile to *me* ;)
15
I'm super peeved at this petulant response from Joe Ricketts. Do unions have their issues. You bet they do but if you can figure out a way to work your way to billion dollar net worth then you sure as heck can figure out how to work with unions. And so much for the idea of job creation these billionaires love to tout.
This man is emotional stunted and morally deprived.
9
'In September, Mr. Ricketts, a conservative who supported President Trump in last year’s election, raised the ante with a post on his blog titled “Why I’m Against Unions At Businesses I Create,” in which he argued that “unions promote a corrosive us-against-them dynamic that destroys the esprit de corps businesses need to succeed.”'
No Mr. Ricketts - your management methods are what ruin the employee / employer relationship. You are simply running away from a business you miss-analyzed and care not to try and build up. Your actions exemplify you lack of empathy for those working "for real" each and every day.
7
First, let me say I do not like Mr. Ricketts. I have done business with him and his family and I find them arrogant and disingenuous, at best. However, in this case, I must support his right to close a failing business. There are no labor laws which can compel a person to continue losing business. And it's not just about union-busting. Mr. Ricketts and his family own a union business...it's called The Chicago Cubs whose players belong to the NLPA.
There is a simple solution. Let the employees union execute a buyout, as many business have done. I'm sure there is some hedge fund that would throw in some cash, and Mr. Ricketts can be a hero for a change.
9
I believe in unions, as I am a certified AFL-CIO organizer and have been employed as an OEO community organizer. But I also believe in free enterprise. These reporters and editors have the option of investing their own money to keep these publications going. End of story.
9
One of their reporters immediately put on his Twitter account a request for the public to meet them at a certain bar and buy them drinks. I guess they really must have been poorly paid.
6
A few years ago, I was unemployed. I decided to save money by stop eating out. My favorite local eatery was like home, and the folks who worked there knew me. I didn't really think about their welfare because I, and probably other folks in my situation, all cut back eating out. We were simply trying to make good, sensisble decision. Even though Ricketts is well-off, shouldn't he also make sensible decisions based on his finances and his values?
3
Clearly this was a result of the workers Unionizing which is an Unfair Labor Practice. Hopefully the Union promptly files charges and the Labor Board grants an injunction. The company itself admitted the Union played a role in shuttering. Also Ricketts anti- union blog. This should be an easy win at the N.L.R.B
1
Do you know who is now in charge at the NLRB?
It won't be a win at all.
If the company was profitable you'd have a point. But it wasn't. The people who worked there couldn't make it generate a profit. As such, trying to force the person who is losing money (no matter how much he might have) isn't an intelligent thing to do and no court is going to vote otherwise.
4
The NRLB cannot force anyone to keep a business operating. It only has leverage if he kept some piece of it operating and retained some employees. Ending it eliminated any possible action.
4
Bravo! I don't think any employee should be subject to unfair working conditions, nor any employer should be subject to unwanted management conditions. Employees are more than welcome to buy a domain name and start reporting with their local union, but in the meantime, Mr. Ricketts can do with his money as he pleases.
Am glad that freedom to do whatever you want with your money prevailed. i feel sad because a few decided to take the SJW route to create controversy. You never bite the hand that feeds you.. Just if you don't like the hand, move on.
7
160 quality journalists reporting local news and generating significant numbers of customers? Sounds like these guys need to reform the company as a cooperative. There are customers there who want the product. Perhaps Rickett's business decisions were bad. The Associated Press is a cooperative. These journalists should not quit. They should stick together, own and build the business themselves, and they won't even need a union. National Cooperative Bank might even finance this venture, given several years of growing revenues.
4
What customers? The viewers weren't paid subscribers, and the ad traffic wasn't nearly enough to support the sites.
1
If this guy's union employees are under the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and it sounds like they are,several Unfair Labor Practices will surely be filed soon. Threatening to close, and closing a business to avoid unionization are hallmark violations of the NLRA. As I recall, the remedy can include an order forcing Mr. Ricketts to reopen the businesses.
2
In today's business environment, there's an oversupply of workers and consequently all negotiating power belongs to the corporations. This is true in spades in the news business but is true in most others. Due to computers, automation and global trade, the glut of workers for fewer jobs will only get worse. America has bought the Trump solution: blame immigrants and blame minority "privileges." When Trumpism proves incapable of providing real help, maybe our society will try to discover a real solution.
Many decades ago, Walter Annenberg shut down the Brooklyn Eagle when they unionized--and that paper made money. I enjoyed DNAinfo from the beginning and will miss it. But if Ricketts was losing money, as he says, then the union was the straw that broke the camel's back. But he might have closed both sites eventually--we'll never know.
2
Ricketts knew that no small union of 100 could compel him to do anything. He could always take a strike and eventually replace the workers. What he couldn't tolerate was sharing any decision-making. With this President who was famous for firing people there won't be any relief from this autocratic capitalism. I will miss the Gothamist.
3
Billionaires don't like unions. Wealthy people don't like unions. Since rich people are mostly conservatives, killing unions in this country by the GOP has become a hobby.
3
I am closing my TD Ameritrade accounts today. Who's with me?
7
Indeed!
I checked Gothamist approximately 12 times per day every day. I wonder if the NY Times can add a hyper local, slightly puck-ish section to ease my pains?
2
To all you know-everythings here hating on Mr Ricketts for making a sound business decision, I propose this: band together by starting a Go Fund Me account. Each of you contribute your life's savings to said account. Use these funds to start a digital news site and continue to financially support it even as it bleeds money every month. And continue your support even when the workers decide to add even more red to the bottom line by starting a union. Sit back and watch each month as your life savings slowly disappears, along with any hope you had of sending your kids to college or of ever retiring. In other words, put your money where your mouth is. What, no takers?
The primary purpose of a business enterprise is the generation of profit for its owners.
6
For Mr. Ricketts these outlets were side-gigs--his main focus is Wall Street. For the writers it is their lives.
He would have seen the financials when he purchased. If he was going to destroy it, he should not have purchased.
Rich guy using the media as a toy and tax write off. Staff unionize and he is tired of his toy so he does the republican thing and throws his toy away, leaving a lot of workers unemployed.
1
I have to point out that much of the time we are happy to write about how awesome driverless cars will be. And side with Uber over British cabbies. And swoon at the big five tech firms even if they are labor light and profit huge.
It may be worth considering that it is not simply the billionaire who is the enemy. If you want an automated world, prefer to live in virtual space, and get the cheapest ride and lowest price on pretty much everything. Well. Then you are not a people person. And you are definitely not a union person. So it seems this kind of situation will be common going forward unless our efficiency orgy gets a reboot.
After all I am sure robots could have written the Gothamist so who needs the writers. In fact a robot could be writing this comment.
5
Seems that billionaires are like small minded evil children, a lot like the twilight episode "It's a Good Life" Anthony Ricketts didn't like their thoughts so he sent them away to the cornfield.
Reality: There are no profits in digital-only publications. Zero. It all goes to Google and Facebook. The lie of "digital first" is cruel for pretending that a decrepit, discredited model, now a generation old, is still new, fresh and untried. It just has to find the right mix to get traction. Someday. Somehow. If you believe that, I have a Thunderdome to sell you.
1
Putting people out of work like this without any remote warning is pretty despicable. It's also maddening that the whole site was just completely scrapped, with no access to past stories.
All unions should target his businesses. But frankly I work in food service and the American unions are absent. No organizing or mutual aid. It's pure exploitation. I just discovered there's not even a federal law giving workers a break time and little state help where I live or other places I glanced at. But everyone talks about sports. And Halloween. Brainwashed.
So much for "trickle down" economics. All those jobs that are supposed to be created when the billionaires get their tax breaks will not, I would expect, be unionized. So the workers will be at the mercy of the people holding the bags of cash who will pay as little as possible in as unpleasant working situations as they can get away with.
1
Sorry to read this news closing DNA info which I frequently read for local neighborhood news, particularly for insight into neighborhoods for housing. Will look into TD Ameritrade as today's news is discouraging, particularly when reporters and local news, are essential.
I have no idea about the logistics involved but maybe all these fired workers can band together and start up their own business to replace what was shuttered.
2
Perhaps the union should take over the paper and assume the risks and show how to manage this successfully in the digital age?
1
In the game of Poker, this is called a bluff.
1
Yes, Ricketts called the union's bluff, and then showed he had the winning hand.
Ricketts had no real commitment to much of anything except his wallet. 115 people running DNA sites in 5 major cities plus Gothamist and Chicagoist? Al Neuharth and Gannett poured hundreds of millions and plenty of human resources into USA Today for over a decade before it even had a chance of a profit. Ricketts was a journalism dilettante seeking a hobby while keeping its employees at hunger wages.
2
There are plenty of companies out there that make no profit. Like twitter for example. Could they become profitable in the long-run? Yes. It's so obvious this move by ricketts was because of them unionizing. He had the money to kept them afloat for a long time, he's a billionaire after all. It was probably pocket change for him to fund them too.
Ricketts is a billionaire, who runs news sites, and voted for Trump. Figure it out.
The same mindset that allows billionaires who seek political office to claim that their wealth insulates them from crass external influence is what also renders them immune to common human empathy. These businesses were chump change for Mr. Ricketts but shutting them down involved no more concern than flicking a fly off his sleeve. Too bad Trump already filled the post of Labor Secretary, Ricketts would have been a natural.
1
The people who got let go if, should unionize and sue union organizers.
2
There is (or used to be) a long process to follow once a shop decides to unionize. A certain percent of eligible employees must vote to approve unionization. People just don’t wake up one day and say, “Hey! Let’s unionize!”
It is a decision not taken lightly because of the time, expense, and — yes — acrimony and downright nastiness that can be involved. But if employees don’t stand up for themselves, no one else will anymore. The era of good faith between management and rank-and-file, and of the benevolent employer, is over. Millionaires like Ricketts can (and obviously do) just walk away and let the business fail to avoid unionization. That is how much the business and his employees ultimately mean to him — scorched-earth labor relations.
Today I will close my TDAmeritrade account.
1
It is time to realize the only people who will maintain or obtain a higher standard of living than their parents are the wealthy. Time for working Americans to finally accept the fact that they are no longer exceptional and figure out a way to survive in the new gilded age of Trump.
5
Adam Smith, Father of the Free Market - felt that if you had corporations, you had to have unions too. What will ever fill this gap? Somebody bring Gothamist back.
1
I feel for the writers and staff. I loved DNAinfo and read it all the time. However, doesn't a private business owner have the right to run his business in the way he sees fit at the end of the day?
9
To what end? Please describe what you believe is the owners right to run their own business as they choose? This article neglected to include any of the background information on why the NY offices of DNAinfo and Gothamist went to the WGA East in the first place. Pay discrepancies? Maybe long work weeks? 115 workers across two sites with offices in five major US cities; and the personal costs associated with that, is not a lot of people to run any news organization.
Here’s the right. They have been losing money for the last couple years and unionizing increased his expenses with zero increase in revenues; therefore most likely higher losses going forward. Dang..life isn’t a handout..they tried it didn’t work..no one is stopping you or anyone else from trying to make a go of it...Go on..this is where the phrase put your money where your mouth is feels appropriate.
3
He sure showed them!
I am shocked and saddened. I really enjoyed Gothamist and the community of people who commented there, for years.
Okay, for whatever reason the two sites are closed. So, now what?
Ricketts is paying 3 months administrative pay plus severance pay. That should be ample time for everyone affected to get a new digital newspaper up and running quickly! After all, you already have experienced staff right there! A nice big union, looking out for union members, could help with a start up loan to get the ball rolling. Shouldn’t need much since it’s all digital.
If it’s worthwhile it should be making money in no time. If it’s not making money, what does that matter, right?
10
All things being told, it appears the decision to unionize was a fatal error. What people fail to remember is the true statement that at the end of the day, it is a business that must remain profitable in order to stay alive.
7
Gothamist was a lifeline into NYC, especially for folks who visit often, but do not live there, like myself. I find it hard to believe that if he thought DNAinfo and the Gothamist were so "impactful" that he couldn't find a way to make things work, but then again, if it didn't benefit only him, what good would that be? He has more money than myself or many others will ever see in a lifetime and can't bear to lose a penny of it. Huge loss for employees and readers.
3
Funny how Ricketts' sites lost money for years, but the WEEK after his employees unionize all the sudden the losses aren't sustainable anymore.
What a coincidence.
6
Obviously, having to add management staff to deal with a union does raise costs dramatically, even if compensation of the workers remains unchanged. Not hard to understand why this straw broke the camel's back.
3
Such is life in the shadow of petty owner.
The pro-union comments here mostly neglect that the unionization in New York cost the jobs of people in Chicago and elsewhere who did not participate in the vote. Try to think outside the bubble sometime.
2
Joining a union wasn't the cause of the closings, it was a the owner who closed the sites. Exactly what was going to change with joining the union? The pay rates are standardized through a union, but the non union world uses the union as the benchmark for pay and compensation. Joining the union meant that when the workers, journalists, web site techs, receptionists, were expected to work longer work weeks, salaried employees expected to work beyond the fair exchange, to do the job of two or three other people, how is that part of the esprite des corps needed to run a business?
WGA is in fantasy land. Learn that before unionizing, make sure said target is profitable. Question? Has anyone bothered to try to unionize at Facebook or Google? Those would should be the targets to unionize, not struggling money losing local vanity sites.
5
“As long as it’s my money that’s paying for everything, I intend to be the one making the decisions about the direction of the business.” So he bought the liberal, Trump-critical Gothamist this past Spring and closed it down yesterday. Either he is a very poor businessman without the foresight to see six months ahead or a very astute political operative.
With media moguls like Mr. Ricketts and Mr. Murdoch the American people can rest easy that freedom of the press and freedom of information are in safe hands. Please keep moving - nothing to see here.
7
This is most unfortunate news for the 115 staff people and readers as well. Sometimes unions are necessary and a positive presence in the workplace. In other situations, not so much. After all of the debating is finished, let's remember one important detail: the money behind the two organizations IS Rickets's money and yes, he may do with it as he pleases! If the severance packages granted to the now unemployed are any indicator, I don't think that Rickets is a cheap skate or an intentional union buster. Far more likely, the was a legitimate business decision, one made for sound economic reasons. Rickets did not make his billions by making bad business decisions!
5
Seems like it’s beginning to be feasible for workers at fast food chains to create unions and push for $15 an hour minimum wage (rightly so) but not for writers to attempt collective bargaining
1
Many of the fast-food workers who've managed to obtain the $15 wage will only get to enjoy it temporarily. Fast-food places are going to move to automation of the ordering process to reduce their employee rolls. Sheetz has done it, and others are beginning to follow.
Look at how self-checkout counters at grocery chains have drastically reduced jobs for cashiers.
2
Many commenters attitudes align with the notion that this is a business and nothing more, that the only purpose for business is to make money, and that employees are somehow a “necessary evil”, a cost burden which whenever possible, must be reduced or replaced.
This attitude, which seems to be prevalent these days in the business community, drives a stake in the heart of the social contract to provide quality or value to customers. If the sole purpose of business is to make money, why would business bother to do anything actually helpful or worthwhile to entice people to use their product or service? Just get the public addicted so they must use it. Kind of like big tobacco, big pharma, big tech, or a Mexican drug cartel. Best business model EVER!
Congratulations. You've just reduced EVERYTHING and EVERYONE to a commodity.
Some of us just aren’t buying it.
6
If the sole purpose of a business ISN'T to make money, who do you think should fund the losses?
1
He had to find some pretextual reason for letting people go. Firing people who try to or successfully unionize is against the law. Letting people go by shutting the business is a way around that.
6
It's is also a recognition of the practical fact that there is no longer any hope for the business.
2
Writers need unions. As a freelancer for 20+ years, it's hard to remember when I wasn't underpaid.
8
When employees are courageous enough to seek union representation in this anti-union age of ours, you know a lot has to be wrong with the work environment. But the real problems in this case are the rise of technology and social media, the dumbing down of America and the devaluation of editorial content to a point where a lot of writers and editors (especially freelancers) can’t make a living wage. Why pay to read something that might expand your horizons when you can watch a cat video on YouTube for free?
4
who is responsible for the dumbing down of America? The Democrats who have controlled public education for two generations!
you'd think they'd learn from the twinkie incident a few years ago when the bakery closed as opposed to meeting union demands...all of those workers lost their high paying salaries, the company liquidated and the twinkie brand was restarted in a new business formed in a right to work state. it's called competition
3
Joe Ricketts' actions were particularly vindictive--obviously this was not just about money. I'll be keeping an eye on Ricketts and the businesses he owns and involves himself with so I can avoid them. Labor is not a commodity. Workers create wealth--far in excess of capital (start-up money)--and have every right to demand their piece of the action. I am neither impressed, nor have I any respect for this action, which amounts to a tantrum. The workers should band together and form their own news outlet--they have everything they need.
4
Is there any other democracy in the world where this would happen? The denigration of press freedoms and their subordinate position to profit speak to the broader disregard for the basic institutions that sustain democracy. As WaPo says, democracy dies in darkness.
6
What did the DNA/Gothamist reporters think was going to happen after they unionized? Driving up labor costs at what were basically tiny operations is no way to build job security. DNA had interesting stories but Gothamist was just snarky and I guess snark just wasn't a good long-term business strategy.
4
It doesn't matter if you're unionized or not. Mr. Ricketts has no obligation beyond spending his money the way he sees fit. They all took a risk that they could build a news model that would make money. See, that's the deal: it has to make money. Apple has to make money selling phones. Airlines have to make money cramming you into an aluminum cigar tube and flying you places. You may not like admitting the dirty truth, but business activities have to make money. Not even "The Simpsons" is produced for free.
4
The business person is not the only one who matters. The customer and worker matter as well. If the enterprise is only useful to the entrepreneur, then it is parasitic and has no reason to exist.
If you need any proof that Ricketts was out to punish his employees, remember that he totally removed ALL archives of both sites. Most freelance journalists and writers rely on having live online copies of their past work viewable for future clients. This was an obvious attempt to try to make sure that those meddlesome unionizing kids never work again.
4
I hate union bashing. This country's long slow decline of the working middle class and the rise of the narrow bandwidth we now know as the 1% started with the union destroying, Reagan and company, and hasn't ceased since.
I am union and I will die union. I work my tail off and I am the middle class. What's left of it.
4
I’m middle class. Never have been Union in over 30 years working. Don’t need to pay someone to take care of my employment. I’m good enough to do it on my own.
3
So you think a money losing business should respond to the unionization of employees making additional demands, should what, lose more money? No, higher labor costs have real world implications that these employees recently discovered.
4
Ricketts claims that unions create an us against them mentality. Regardless of whether a business is unionized, there's always going to be some conflict between workers and management over how much of revenues will be paid to the former and how much will remain for the latter. But smart managers can work with unions to reduce tensions. If Ricketts is correct and the online sites are money-losers that he is funding out-of-pocket, he should have sat down with the unions, opened his books, and explained exactly what was happening. Working together, exploring various options, including a co-operative arrangement, would have more likely reduced tensions and maximized the likelihood that the sites could survive then thrive.
34
The point of organizing a union is for labor to extract some of the gains that accrue to capital for themselves. If capital isn't gaining there's nothing to extract, very short sighted of the writers to form a union at a struggling internet site.
4
[[“Unions promote a corrosive us-against-them dynamic that destroys the esprit de corps businesses need to succeed.”]]
In my experience, poor management is the thing that hampers most organizations. Poor management leads to bad communication and a lack of transparency. Decisions seem arbitrary and people don't feel like their work contributes to the success of the company. People stop trying to improve the workplace and descend into pessimism and outright hostility towards the customer.
In another article, someone says the workers were looking for stability, I assume in terms of scheduling their work hours. In that regard, they are in the same boat as fast food workers who have to cobble together a work schedule and can't plan other aspects of their lives like child care and school.
1
As the owner of the business, Ricketts could close it at any time, for any reason. Union busting is threatening to close, gaining concessions, then continuing to operate.
The workers must have known the business was losing money, yet they decided to join the union anyway. Bravo, it is their right, but as Barack Obama once said, "Elections have consequences"
3
I found myself increasingly reading stories on DNA Chicago, as our own local newspapers have shriveled. I’ll miss it. But this sure seems like a classic case of employees being utterly clueless about the larger values in their business. Margins were already thin when they voted to unionize. The prospects of dealing with the onerous costs of a unionized work force probably just tipped the pain/gain ration past 1. So Ricketts gets heat for making a sound business decision that the now-former employees feel is unfair. I probably would have shut it down, too. Why lose money?
21
Sometimes there are good reasons to lose money.
Yeah the guy was really hurting financially. His family owns the Chicago Cubs, a baseball team full of unionized players. Those dirty unions, they just ruin everything for all the elite billionaires, amirite?
1
Ken: I agree on both points. I also found myself more dependent on DNAinfo Chicago as other sources disappeared. Perhaps they were just about to reach the tipping point to success. Unions: Unions are successful only if the business is successful. Unions hold that success "hostage" if you will. If the business is a bust then the Boss can just let the hostage go. Ricketts might have been debating shutting it down for months or years because it lost money. Having more complicated legal entanglements were not what he wanted to see.
2
This is a very tough business. I'm surprised Patch seems to have made it through but they have done that through significant staff cuts and watered down content.
Tough times were ahead for this business so assuming dealing with additional union overhead is just one more thing he didn't want to deal with.
Severance, at least, was relatively generous: "They are getting three months of paid “administrative leave” at full salary, plus four weeks of severance,"
1
Patch content in my area was once decent, is now largely worthless. Looks like it is written by volunteers, with limited motivation. I stopped reading it.
If the employees for a union, there must have been some points of contention that motivated them. Wouldn't it have made sense for the owner to appoint someone to go over the reasons why the employees wanted one and reach a mutual concession in a rational way instead of flushing the whole thing?
1
When business owners choose to close their businesses because employees want to unionize, they make it very clear that it is, in fact, "us-against-them" and that any esprit de corps that may exist is controlled by the whims of management.
21
Or when employees allow outsiders to come in and convince them to pay them and actually say it’s us against them. Wow. Very one sided. He had lost money for a couple years, increasing costs would lose more money. Why doesn’t the union and their new members buy the publications? Then they can have the fun of being an owner and worry about payroll, benefits, hiring and firing, etc...
8
The owner closed the business became, as this article says, it has been losing money every single month of its existence. And the labor union had the unmitigated gall to send a list of demands? The only thing these new union members should have sent to the owner was a thank you card saying "thank you for writing us paychecks out of your own pocket on a money losing business." Instead, they want to "negotiate." Negotiate what, how to take more money from a guy already losing money on every single employee? But hey, I guess the union collected some dues before their newly minted members all ended up unemployed. Hooray for the union.
6
American management doesn't care about the welfare of their employees, hence the need for unions. Management has to be forced to behave in a civilized manner. They don't see the employees as team members, they see them as servants.
1
Well, I don’t have to invest at TD Ameritrade, and neither do the union pension funds that are still a force in this country. If Mr. Ricketts wants to play this game, unions, large investors themselves, would do well to make him Public Enemy #1.
20
No you don’t. And he doesn’t need to keep running a business that is losing money and be forced to pay higher salaries (some of which go to union bosses) for the privilege of losing more money.
2
Stronger unions are mean good working conditions,benefits and a living wage. Owners like Ricketts are only interested in profits not people.
16
You can't have a business that doesn't make profits.
2
Wow, so companies have to be profitable to stay in in business! What a concept. As a union supporter, I'm not surprised you don't grasp this idea and think businesses are charities. Did you read the article? This business has NEVER made money. EVER. And now the union has the gall to make demands to take over running the business where the owner is essentially paying the workers salaries out of his own pocket rather than from the (non-existent) earnings of the company. Of course he shut it down. But I guess the union is happy. After all, they collected some dues before all their new members ended up unemployed.
3
As well as protecting poor performing workers, lining the pockets of Union reps and generally making things more expensive...
I think we need not for profit, non-partisan publicly funded news. I won't blame the employees for trying to make a decent wage and I understand Ricketts wanting to make money. However, as the business owner, at the end of the day this was his fault if he couldn't figure out how to make things profitable. Why not throw his weight around and try to get tax breaks for local journalism? Or a find a way to make it publicly supported to save it. Local news is important!
6
It’s clearly not important enough to pay for
Like too many capitalists, Mr Ricketts built his model on the exploitation of labor.
When he bought the businesses, he believed that his profitability and return on his (and others') investments was in significant part dependent on not paying the producers of his content and production what was what they were worth. Instead of creating a partnership, he remained the master.
Whereas with TD Ameritrade, he could enrich himself by slicing a percentage off other people's money, here he tried to enrich himself by slicing a percentage off other people's hard work. Shame on him and others who think that driving down labor costs is their path to riches.
17
If these workers think they are being exploited, they are free to start their own website and pay themselves exactly what they think they are worth from the profits it will generate. Oh, wait. There aren't any. This business has lost money since day one,yet somehow the workers got paid anyway, by the owner out of his own pocket. Who is exploiting whom here?
3
Production is worth what someone will pay to obtain it. That is how value is measured, not by how hard someone tried.
The fact is we have a glut of journalist wanna-bes. Just as we have a glut of college professor wanna-bes. Excess supply leads to lower payments to both groups. Having unions will not change this fact of life.
The unionized workers should buy it and make a go of it.
14
I said essentially the same thing, except they don't have to buy it--they are it. These are online outlets--they could work from home! They just need to coordinate, get it up and running quickly and advertise. Work with local gov't to send out email blast ads to local gov't employees who are major consumers of local news, etc...
2
The union should front the money to start it up.
1
I enjoyed reading both DNAInfo and The Gothamist, which both filled a major gap in neighborhood news coverage as traditional print dailies drastically cut their local coverage as ad revenues continue to shrink. Their demise is a loss for our City.
But while it is understandable for talented professionals to seek respectable wages for their labor, the fact that Mr. Ricketts was sustaining losses made the unionization drive Quixotic and fatally shortsighted. Fortunately, my neighborhood has West Side Rag, which has mastered the difficult economics of producing local news in the online media age.
5
For over ten years, I worked in the space between a major union and one of the big three auto companies. I had been retained to help them structure a new kind of relationship that worked better than the old adversarial one. Both sides realized the old one wasn't working anymore. A lot of history, bad habits, mistrust and global economics ultimately doomed our efforts. Even as plant closure notices were going up, union leaders shouted Gomper's rallying cry of "More, more, more!" I was, and am, a strong believer that any organization that has a union has earned it. But I couldn't help but marvel at the union's inability to shift gears in its strategic thinking towards "gain sharing" strategies. Stop thinking only about dividing the pie in a way more favorable to the union and start thinking about a way to enlarge the pie to favor everyone. And union membership just keeps getting smaller and smaller. Like it or not, unions need to take to heart the issues of profitability.
16
"Profitability" is the appropriation of value earned by the labor of the workers into the pockets of shareholders who do no work.
Working people have no stake in compromising in their own exploitation.
1
I just became a White Sox fan. Seriously, though, I enjoyed reading DNAinfo Chicago. It profiled businesses, events, and local news in neighborhoods, like my Rogers Park neighborhood, that are normally ignored by other media outlets -- unless there's shooting.
I hope in the near future that someone creates a profitable business model that provides hyperlocal news. There is a demand for it.
11
The union was five days old. It's hard to imagine in that time that a small group of dedicated journalists posed a serious challenge to Joe Ricketts' goals. After investing multi-millions over eight years in an ambitious vision of coverings local news in multiple cities and supporting a quality staff to execute that vision, it turns out that Joe Ricketts overriding principle is that he doesn't want any possible resistance from employees to any of his personal priorities. This decision wasn't about business. It was a wealthy man demonstrating the power of wealthy men.
43
Maybe it's just a business owner that is tired of losing money.
2
Why was Ricketts compelled to keep funding a money-losing organization whose employees evidently decided that they needed a union? Let the union start a new website.
2
I can't comment on Ricketts personally. He owned a money-losing business and didn't want to deal with the anticipated hassle of a union. I have owned a publishing company and felt the same way. Even assuming you had the profits to pay more to writers and editors the overhead of dealing with a union would have been too much.
If the Gothamist was profitable the workers or some of them should consider going into business. This is somewhat separate from the issue of how to adequately fund local news in the future. After 25 years of the internet some aspects of journalism and the arts are dying. If readers and users don't fund them directly, they don't scale well, and when they do, all the digital profits mainly go to the few dozen tech companies that now rule our lives. That is an untenable situation that will require new economic arrangements. Unionizing journalists or anyone in businesses that can't break even won't be the solution.
10
If you can't pay the overhead, including decent salaries, you shouldn't be in business.
It seems entirely clear the websites were purchased with the intent to shutter the interest some six months later. This rhetoric concerning unions or poor business performance holds no water with me. See Ricketts' closure of the site archives as Exhibit A in support of this.
Fortunately for everyone, and perhaps inconveniently for Mr. Ricketts, the internet doesn't forget. The Way Back Machine archives the internet with regularity and Gothamist was last archived in its entirety just yesterday (November 2nd). The writers should use this as a resource to recover lost work, if they do not have their own backups of course, and we will always have a record of their hard work and service.
12
They can't do that! Can they?
1
Assuming you're not being sarcastic, sure they can. Even the all powerful government can't force someone to keep a money losing business open. Perhaps the workers should have considered that before sending their list of "demands".
2
HE just did. So yes, he can. Welcome to the new gilded age. Expect the floodgates to open....
You mean do as they please with their own property?
1
The views of most comments is that it is easy to run a news site and pay workers whatever they feel they deserve. So why don't they simply do it? Overhead costs for online distribution are low with the salaries the main cost. So why doesn't the Writer's Guild members start their news site and pay themselves from the profits they will surely make?
26
I don't see anyone saying that running a news site — or any business — is easy.
But as they say, you got to pay the band that plays the tune.
If you can't afford the overhead, including good salaries, you have no business running a business.
Exactly.
Probably for the same reason Mr. Ricketts doesn't just write all the news articles himself.
Anyone else out there thinking - gee, four months paid? Not a bad package. A lot of folks have seen a lot of jobs end without that much cushion, especially since 2008. (Yeah, we know the economy is getting better, sort of...) Best wishes to all the newly unemployed for the winter and beyond.
14
So this is what corporate greed has led to, a billionaire with more money than he could possibly spend in 10 lifetimes would rather shut down a business than pay his workers a little more.
68
People go into business to make money, not create welfare dependents.
One of the basic lessons in Econ201 is that the three inputs; land, labor, and capital are equally important. How smug capital has become, thinking it is the controlling factor in the economy.
26
Your assertion re: basic conventional economics is correct. However, that information may be skewed, capital is not nearly as valuable or real as land and labor.
You are absolutely right. And labor has the right to withhold its input (via recognized weapons such as strikes etc after they have been formed) just as capital has the right to withhold its inputs. It will be interesting to see whether labor law can force Mr. Ricketts to continue to provide his input ($$$).
"Don't like my rules? I'll take my money and leave."
- Business owners.
At least now the newsroom employees understand who butters the bread.
22
That's exactly how it should work. It isn't a charity. He's called the boss for a reason.
1
Too bad the Mr. Ricketts of the world don't acknowledge how the seed got planted that grew the wheat that was ground into flour to make the bread and who tended the cows that gave the cream that was churned into butter for the bread. They dub themselves "the creators" and enjoy the bounty and give the crusts to labor. Why can't labor enjoy a seat at the table when there's enough bread and butter for all? If Mr. Ricketts owns all the land that grows the wheat and the herd of cows that make the butter then he better get busy tending them himself or fairly compensate those that do.
Egads. New America Media (http://newamericamedia.org), which provided a lot of support for projects helping my j-students (like taking 3 to the Democratic National Convention to report on Obama's inauguration) and other projects of this instructor, just announced it is officially shutting down November 30. Now DNAinfo, which I and many, many others will really miss for its journalism. And the Gothamist? Scary times for serious journalists, scary times when really good journalism is needed.
36
I literally cannot believe they shut down my 2 FAVORITE sites !! I was a loyal reader to both sites for 7 years. The journalism was innovative and always interesting for a NYer who enjoys the city ... I have no words
28
This wasn't about profitability.
Rickets was telling people to whom he was accountable for employment conditions where they could get off.
28
Removing site archives is no less spiteful than if a new owner of Wrigley Field sprayed the ivy with weedkiller.
There's going to be a reckoning for billionaires who think they're feudal lords. They think that they're avoiding it by crushing union efforts, but they're just postponing it.
53
@ L.B., Charlottesville, VA “There’s going to be a reckoning for billionaires who think they’re feudal lords”
Maybe it’s my Google skillz that are inadequate to the task, but I seem to be unable to find any manufacturers or vendors in the tri-state area to supply tumbrels.
Anyone out there know of any good showrooms?
Ridiculous statement.
Let’s call a spade a spade here: Union-busting coward.
62
So you are in favor of a person, who starts a business whose product you like, be required to keep funding that business’s losses in perpetuity? Just because he happens to be wealthy? Exactly Who should decide that a private business must keep running losses and who should pay for those losses? You? I guess you get to be the dictator.
1
Union busting hero.
Suggestion: The now unemployed writers & union members gather together, form an online newspaper called "the Tsimahtog" (Gothamist spelled backward), steal the guys advertisers, and see if you can make a go of it! Be surprised if a group couldn't get a loan at Amalgamated Bank and organize as a profit-sharing cooperative in no time.
It is time to stare-down the haters with creativity -- if you can!
47
"Freedom of the press is for those who own one." -- A.J. Liebling
27
If these reporters, staff, etc. are so good at their jobs and have a product that consumers are willing to pay for, then they should pool their financial resources and start an employee-owned enterprise. I'd really love to see them pull this off as it would make the former owner's decision look short-sighted as well as petty.
That said, I doubt the workers at this combined news room have the risk taking capacity, leadership or other skills needed to do this. They were satisfied with being "wage slaves." Unionizing was just a way to demand more in wages while still being workers responsible for only their assigned tasks of the day. They weren't going to take on additional work to justify the larger wages.
When you have skin in the game you work hard to make it successful. Workers are hired help, nothing more, and their only risk is getting laid off when the enterprise fails. So they do their jobs, collect their paychecks and leave at the end of the day without worrying too much about whether the company is successful beyond paying their checks and benefits. Owners think and operate differently.
23
Owners are out for a profit at the lowest possible expense.
They can't skimp on real estate and raw materials, so they aim at the most vulnerable overhead: wages.
An online information business depends on selling advertising. That's not the job of jourrnalists.
It's up to the owner and his sales staff to generate revenue in order to pay for decent salaries.
3
Everyone's getting it all wrong. It's not, "the evil white man shut down his companies and put people out of work."
It's supposed to be, "There's a void where a useful service used to be and now there are a lot of capable and knowledgeable people who can fill it with their own services."
It will be tough, but with a little crowdfunding or loans, these now-unemployed writers can form their own news agency. They can bring Gothamist and DNAinfo back--spiritually, anyway--and provide the same content that everyone here says they liked, but this time they'll be answerable only to themselves.
Wouldn't stepping up and succeeding be the best revenge of all? :D
21
Crowdfunding won't sustain a business.
A news site has to charge a fee or attract advertisers.
Or, like the major sites, do both.
1
They won't succeed. They don't know how. All they studied is identity politics and gender.
1
I can't actually say the words that came out of my mouth when I read this news. So greedy - and shutting down the archives is purely spiteful.
21
1. A consequence of concentrated wealth and power? You bet.
2. We desperately need a country populated by worker-owned organizations.
39
After reading this article, I decided to check out Mr. Rickett's blog. There is some crazy disinfo on it. I don't know if the guy is truly ignorant or has an agenda. He cites the Heritage Foundation in his posts. On one of his posts, about single parents with children, he claims that in order for a single mom to receive a welfare check, she must not work. That is an outright lie. All the women I know who are on TANF, MUST work. When you apply, it says you MUST work. Only if you have a newborn you are exempt, but that's only if you can't find childcare. He goes on to say the Clinton's welfare reform was a "success" and quotes FDR out of context. Crazy, crazy stuff.
Talking about unions undermining esprit-de-corps....seriously? This is about domination of the company over the individual. THAT undermines esprit-de-corps by pitting workers against each other. Instead of us vs the "owners," it's become us against each other. Are we now slaves to our masters?
After reading his blog, I think this guy is just really, really stupid. This why our country is so messed up. We have dumb, ignorant billionaires with too much power and influence. Then these guys think they are brilliant just because they are billionaires. One billionaire's opinion should not overrule the wants and desires of the people. One billionaire's opinion should not overrule the actual facts. Unfortunately, that's exactly what has been happening. Bye, bye truth!
49
Yeah. Your truth is gone . Lol
decades of right wing indoctrination and outright lies has left this country collectively stupid. Billionaires are clearly not impervious to this...
As for the blatant inaccuracies, I’m with you. But, I must reply to...
Statement 1:
*Are we now slaves to our new masters?*
NO. You’re employees of an employer & benefiting from their kindness letting you have a job. Being employed is a privilege & not a right. They do not have to hire you. They own the company, they get to make the rules. If you don’t like the rules, there is the door...don’t let it hit ya where the good lord split ya. An employer has only 2 rules to follow: 1) Don’t break the LAW. 2) Honor the terms of employment (i.e. pay you as agreed during the offer & subsequent acceptance and anything else agreed to). That’s it. Plus, unless there was a contractual term agreement within the offer, the owner can - at his discretion - inform you that based on the ebb & flow of business needs ‘your position is having its salary cut’ or ‘outright eliminated’ etc. & there is nothing wrong with that. That’s business, it’s not personal. I have spent the last 20 years in management - from Entry-level up to director/SEVP/COO most recently - and I’ve always executed via 1 simple - yet hard for people to understand - truth & I have quoted it many times (such as when I looked across my desk & fired my own mother) & it’s “Business is Business“.
I have a lot of sympathy for the (suddenly) out of work workers, but this guy probably did them (and everyone else) a favor; they are a lot better off not working for him. With bosses and owners like that, the agony just continues. Best wishes to Mr. Ricketts and all of his former employees. he can go back to doing what he (I assume) does best; making money. They can focus on doing what they do best; which is, presumably, writing, communicating and reporting the news. Hopefully, they will find a patron of some kind, venture capitalist, whatever, who believes in the value of that and is willing to support it.
6
To all posters that thought Mr. Ricketts was horrible in doing this, and loved and depended on DNAinfo for your news, why don't you band together and start your own news web site. There are a few reporters looking for work. What, afraid to leave your day job and don't think you'll make money, but willing to cast stones toward Mr. Ricketts, then you're a hypocrite.
19
I agree. Same next time when people working in for instance a coal mine try to unionize, they should just start their own coal mine! Same goes for the workers at Kmart, McDonalds etcetera - forget about unions, just start your own company competing with the one you used to work for!
Some people want zero risk and fame, and act surprised every time they find out they cannot have both.
1
Paul--and why don't YOU quit YOUR day job and try to outcompete the NYT? Oh, you don't have a billionaire's war chest? See, you're part of the problem.
This was a power play, plain and simple. Anyone defending Ricketts is seriously out of touch, naive, or believes that unions shouldn't exist and have no value. Yes, let's allow more plutocrats to shove crony capitalism down our throats, outsource our jobs, replace us with foreign H1-B workers or maybe we should all start working 12+ hour days again, and children as young as 5 can as well. And let's not have any safety protocols and go back to being pre-union expendable pawns. Sound good? If you keep thinking this way, this will go back to being the "American Dream" for all but the wealthiest.
26
Lots leaps of logic in that post.
For any writers who need access to clips from the site, there is a non-profit called Internet Archive which periodically saves the entire content of highly-trafficked websites. The Gothamist archives they have may be found here: https://web.archive.org/web/*/gothamist.com
9
People don't need neighborhood storytelling, they need neighborhood intelligence agencies. Governments pay their intel services well, because its worth it. As soon as smaller news agencies realize that making subscribers privy to intelligence they are expected to not share, intelligence that can help them a lot, the sooner they can start getting profit back.
1
Union demands are basically backed by an economic threat of a strike.
This guy made a threat too, then carried it out.
I always thought strikes vs. lock-outs were a dumb way to get labor and capital to work out issues. Too much like a game of chicken to decide important matters.
12
It’s amusing to me how many people are defending the business owner says it’s HIS business, yet these are the same people who complain about jobs going elsewhere and having a “fair” shot. People don’t unionize unless they have to.
38
Are you sure it’s the same people? What makes you think unions aren’t the reason jobs are moving overseas? Why do you believe people who have no ownership stake in any business deserve a voice as if they do? What good are property rights if the right of disposal is taken away?
17
Businesses offshore their labor because they prefer to allocate more profit in unearned income to their shareholders than pay decent wages to those who do the actual work.
It's greed by the corporate moguls, not unions, that drive this.
Germany has done quite well giving workers a voice in running companies. Have you noticed as soon as an American has some real money what kind of car they buy?
Spiteful stupidity from the owner of AmeriTrade and the Chicago Cubs. It's his way or the highway. We're seeing it in Wrigleyville, and now we're seeing it with regard to labor unions. At best, this is a weak excuse by Ricketts for poor management.
30
This was a strong move by a powerful man. Regardless. These people don't think like you. They think big
It is illegal to retaliate against employees for organizing a union. I hope the WGAE files charges as I'm sure they will. Ricketts is the worst.
45
closing a money losing business is not retaliation. it is simple economics.
1
The WGAE can file all the charges it wants. It's not going to bring either of these publications back. Ricketts could shutter them whenever he wanted; he just chose this time to do so. The best the union could hope for is punitive damages, but what's done is done.
Wait -- is Ricketts claiming he went into local news for the money? Here's hoping some of these reporters start their operation. It's time to stop working for billionaires and start competing with them.
28
I believe I am correct in saying that Rupert Murdoch loses money on the NY Post every month, and always has. He wanted a voice, and got one, even though it's such a rag, no one with any brains reads it.
Ricketts could easily support the papers. However, given who he is, I'm glad he's out of the business. I hope the reporters can stay together and publish an equivalent paper on their own. I'd certainly read it.
And yes, NY Times, we New Yorkers need more local coverage from you.
20
Hey Chicago Cub fans - this guy is the owner of your team. He used your money to help elect Trump.
Didn't Paul Ryan say today that the big tax cut for businesses would allow them to raise wages? This is how all the robber barons will really treat their workers.
53
Looks like I'll be taking the $100 I was going to spend on renewing my MLB package next year and donating it to a non-profit journalism outlet.
I think the employees are better off not having to sell their souls to some grimy millionaire.
7
This illustrates the fundamental flaw in capitalism: the only things that survive are those that make money - usually for some rich guy. Never mind that there were many valuable things produced by these publications. If they didn't make money for their guardian angels, they were suffocated and died. If this is to be the metric that decides our future, I shudder to think what the world will look like.
145
This article makes me wonder if we should be adjusting our expectations for journalism from a capitalistic industry into a nonprofit or public good service, something in between the arts and utilities companies.
9
So should the govt. step in and fund all failing businesses? Maybe we'd all be driving DeLoreans now if that was the case!
1
That is not a flaw in capitalism. By definition capitalism is designed for profit. It sounds like you wanted him to run these businesses as charities. They were not charities.
I give money to charities that do work I want to support. Everyone is free to do the same.
This is a sad day. I had DNAInfo Chicago delivered free to my mailbox (actually a paper copy!) and it was a terrific extremely local little paper, with articles about my neighborhood. Nearly all the articles seemed to be written by the same reporter, Sam Cholke, and they were all informative and were the type of articles that would rarely have appeared in the Tribune or Sun-Times. So a shout-out to Sam Cholke. Your work did not go unnoticed.
31
Delivered free. Would you have paid for a subscription?
A case of the disruptors disrupting themselves into oblivion. Just another Thursday in the digital era.
12
The purpose of a business is to make money. That's all. Employees are sometimes a necessary evil to accomplish this purpose. By the way, I've never owned a business, but I realized this truth many years ago.
18
Wrong! Muddle-headed thinking. The purpose of business is to supply a service or a good to a consumer. One hopes to make money doing so, but that is not the purpose of business. Businesspeople all too often act like spoiled children: they want what they want when they want it. Wrong. Business is properly subject to regulation because of the all-to-ever-present specter of exploitation (of workers and consumers). Labor unions, even with their excesses, act as another check on corporate greed and exploitation.
1
The technology needed to publish an online newspaper in 2017 is hardly cutting edge. If the former employees of DNAInfo and Gothamist think that they can create - with their workplace demands - a going concern that publishes, let them do so. It's not like they need a physical printing press. They don't even need a physical server (cloud products galore out there). Take your ball and go somewhere else and do your thing. Stop griping about the former owner. If you think it can be done, prove it. Do it.
29
Well said. Too many on this comment thread act as though the former owner owed the reporters and workers something beyond their paychecks. He doesn't owe the anything. As you pointed out, if they're so good at their jobs, let them start their own business instead of being wage slaves.
14
Sorry, to hear that these people could be out of work. However, they should be proud they joined a union. Between 1978 & 2015, CEO pay increased 900 %. During that same time, worker pay rose less than 11%. The playing field needs to be leveled.
31
I worked in heavy industry for over 30 years in unionized and nonunion environments. I have negotiated contracts with 5 national unions over my career. A couple of observations -
To quote a union organizer I knew: "I am never invited into a well run company, the workers throw rocks at me. But at a poorly run company, a company were management is abusing the workforce, I am welcomed with open arms." - 'Nuff Said.
Part of the problem with the current incarnation of unions is that they have never moved passed the 1950's. They are still in the 'War With Management' mode. That is a huge turn off to today's workers. In addition they do not provide value to their members. There is a huge initiation fee, and their ability to provide benefits above the industry average, therefore the reason for being in a union, is limited. Then there is the thuggery all too often associated with unions. To those who will scream at this, unless you have been on a picket line, or in a union hall, you don't know what you are talking about.
In today's fast pasted environment, trying to lock things in stone for three years is a losing proposition. Probably the best thing that could happen if for the existing union movement to die off and to be replaced by one that is more responsive both to its members and to the world as it now exists.
113
America -- its companies and workers -- would do well to follow Germany's best practices that give labor (i.e. unions) a place at the table. Their productivity numbers are off the charts and both sides feel respected.
28
Silly to reference Germany’s system of workers councils. Remember that the US unions wouldn’t allow the American workers to have similar workers councils at BMW or Volkswagen - so the workers voted NOT to unionize. Unions in their current form are malignant - there is no other word for it.
11
Bruce1253 makes excellent points, especially the first, concerning how union organizers are received in some places. Despite what some unions try to sell to the masses, there ARE some well run companies in America and that DO provide a pleasant working environment for their employees. I've had the pleasure of working for a few such firms, as well as the 'other' kind. The differences are as obvious as night and day.
2
His family owns the Chicago Cubs and he's afraid to carry a losing business? Ya gotta be kiddin' me.
WaPo, owned by the capo di tutti capi of billionaires, is putting much of it's liberal content out there for free as a journalistic public service. NYTimes ditto. If a conservative wants to shut down his web sites and stifle his own voice I say that's one less conservative for anybody to pay attention to. Go take a long seventh-inning stretch, Joe Ricketts. You just benched yourself.
15
This is hilarious. Way to bite the hand that fed you, folks.
18
A couple of commenters have quipped “Atlas shrugged,” in a triumphalist tone. Presumably cheering on Rickets for shuttering both websites because employees had the gall to unionize.
This is the world the Randites want: one in which workers are supplicants to capital, grateful for any crumbs they get, terrified to demand fair compensation.
Never mind that Gothamist was by all accounts a profitable enterprise - one that Rickets bought precisely because it was making money. He vindictively shut down the newly acquired business because its workers chose to join the increasing number of digital media employees who have recently chosen to unionize (and whose companies have not suffered as a result of such unionization). A truly ugly move - one indicative of the selfishness, greed and class warfare (by the rich) that have come to typify this country.
234
yet many farmers in california and other states pay low under the table wages to day laborers, and we know what party the majority of californians support.
Its his comapny to do with as he sees fit. The employees are workers not owners. Start reversing the roles and chaos and a shuttered company. Its just that simple
That is great and how it is supposed to work.
Employees exercised their rights to join a famously extortive and anti-competitive union.
Investors, who paid their salaries, exercised their rights to fire them all and close down the business.
Now these employees can exercise their rights to try to find a better job, or start their own businesses, where they will be the ones paying salaries and dealing with inflexible, extortive unions.
It is the cycle of life, in liberal America at its best.
21
Actually, no. "Investors" are expressly prohibited by law from retaliating against workers for joining a union, so they if they do so, they aren't exercising a right. "Investors" also don't pay anyone's salary. In return for upfront capital, they agree to receive a share of the company's profits. Who earns those profits? The employees. So it's the employees who are actually paying the investors.
18
This is not the fault of unionizing. It seems to be a problem with capitalism. No economy can prosper if it's businesses fail when they pay decent wages and benefits. In the past, it was unions that brought us those decent wages and benefits. As unions went away so did the decent wages and benefits. I think this whole incident is a sad comment on the state of our economy and the future of this country.
20
DNA wasn't worth the paper it wasn't printed on. Gothamist is another story. If Gothamist was profitable on its own then it should be resurrected by the employees, the union and the advertisers. Call it Gotham Union or something. It's the Internet. The barriers to re-entry are practically nil. Take the administrative and severance pay and parlay it in to getting the new entity back up and running. Show the 1% what esprit de corps looks like.
21
The owner of Atwater Kent Radio warned his employees back in the 1930s that he would close his very successful business if they unionized. They voted the union in and he padlocked the gate the following day and closed. It was HIS company.
6
And HE lost his "very successful business".
13
Billionaire throws a trumper tantrum and smashes his toys. Surely, he needs a tax break to sooth his hurt feelings.
32
When GE had enough of unions and strikes, it picked up stakes and moved, leaving my western Mass hometown in straits it never recovered from. Even now, decades later, the city is a wreck, a rundown place that draws a bad element. Knowing the beautiful, vibrant city that was once there, I’ve never been in favor of unions, even though GE would probably have moved eventually, union or no union. These big corporations are soulless and will kill people for a penny. Isn’t that what the Republican health bill was all about? Killing people to fund a tax cut? And the DNA of DNAlocal is a large corporation.
52
You recognize that "GE would probably have moved eventually, union or no union."
Yet you still blame the union!
Come on, Andy, you can do better that that nonsense.
Do you also believe we have to let large corporations poison our land, air & water?
We don't have to let them get away with anything. There are signs the Democrats are ready to get behind reviving unions. It's not a matter of waiting for that to happen. it's a matter of voting in the primaries for Democrats who will do that.
Don't believe that unions are history. That's what the soulless, evil corporations & their Republican flunkies want you to believe.
For crying out loud take a look at Germany! Doing really well economically with strong unions. Not stupid unions like they have in France to be sure.
yes, democrats have never left anyone in the lurch
GE in Western MA left us with a permanent legacy of environmental destruction. Rivers are virtually superfund sites that GE fought to refuse to clean up their permanent PCB's. GE does not bring good things to life, they are a military-industrial monstrosity. Better to go back to farming rock-farms in Western MA than longing for terrible, monstrous GE. There are other, more responsible & equitable ways to make money without criminal behemoths like GE.
1
I don't know how things are done in New York, but in some places local news relies heavily on community goodwill and volunteers. It's a way of contributing to your community rather than anything especially serious, and certainly not a way of making real money.
But if they did start to take themselves seriously, perhaps, for example, by unionising, then it would be equally fair to treat them as serious businesses rather than a community motivated affair.
And real businesses live and die by their profits, simple as that. I'll always support local community news, but I also understand that, should they push to become actual businesses, many are simply not viable.
8
Papers in the US mostly died in the 80s and early 90s, when investors, fueled by leveraged capital like junk bonds, realized they could get 20-30% returns on investment, and gutted this business.
Internet sites like Patch.com, huffingtonpost.com and also non-profits like wnyc.org rely on volunteer or near-volunteer compensation in exchange for community coverage or photos (wnyc), but the resulting quality is unprofessional and unreliable -- at best. As with other important professions in society, there is no substitute for a properly compensated professional. You get what you pay for.
11
Maybe the news shouldn't be "for profit". Maybe some things just shouldn't be based on a for-profit model—health care, education, an independent press.
35
Leslie - even a "not for profit" has to bring in enough revenue to cover its expenses and to improve its services..
12
Not necessarily, Andre. Dr. Barleycorn is no entrepreneur, but he's learning a lot about how some businesses operate. For example, some businesses never make any money at all; they just keep on losing money. How does that work? Well, some people (usually venture/vulture capitalists with millions to burn) will support these businesses for reasons of their own. Either they are gambling that one out of a hundred companies will create something that is worth gazillions (hence, magically turning millions into gazillions), or because they gain some other less tangible advantage, or simply because they believe that the mission and goals of the enterprise is worth supporting (as in the case of some artistic endeavor or something else that contributes to the public good). It isn't all about buying and selling widgets. Cheers, - JB
3
don't forget food, transportation, utilities, manufacturing and entertainment. there's really no limit on what can be accomplished without a profit motive, relying instead on the proven effectiveness of pure altruism.
just look at the stellar success that is Venezuela. even better, Cuba. models of prosperity without profit.
1
This is pretty much just the rich playing hardball. He has started businesses with less capital, and now that unions have been roundly busted in most sectors and states, it probably makes sense to swat a mosquito with a wrecking ball in this case, so that any trend toward re-unionizing is quickly squelched and labor at any future company this man opens will know what happens if employees don't "know their place."
29
obviously tired of playing in the media sandbox and off to his next hobby. Curious as to what it is!
5
America's still a free country - the workers united, the owner folded.
If these newly unionized and now unemployed workers are so good at their jobs, let them go start their own news business. Good luck!
30
"In September, Mr. Ricketts...raised the ante with a post on his blog titled “Why I’m Against Unions At Businesses I Create”
Sounds like this person cares more about not dealing with a union that he does about running an online news outlet. From down here in the non-elite it is hard to respect such an attitude - ideally we expect work to be a mission, a calling. We do what we love, do it well, and expect to be paid a liveable wage for it.
18
As a journalism professor, former journalist and DNAinfo consumer, I'm depressed. Baffled. Less hopeful. I'm depressed because DNAinfo picked up critical neighborhood Chicago news partially filling in the gap The Tribune and Sun-Times left when they wholesale jettisoned staff. Now it's dead. I'm baffled the NY staff is mystified at the owner's move to shutter the business. The first thing I learned in journalism school is that journalism is a business. No money, no journalism. #30# Anyone in the business knows it's a graveyard out there right now. I'm a union supporter. I always have been, but c'mon just because the owner has billions doesn't mean he wants to burn good money after bad supporting a losing investment. Why the stomp your foot, clinch and raise your fist, line in the sand, approach? I suspect a well thought out and professional ask might have been well received and rewarded. I'm absolutely hacked NY shut down Chicago. Chicago didn't get a vote and as a result this city just lost a very important source of news and a news site that provided Chicago residents a voice which now barely exists. What a shame. The available journalism labor pool just got larger which in turn will depress wages even more for those lucky enough to hang onto jobs. Ironic.
117
You have tenure.
8
I don't think this was purely or even mostly a financial decision, but a spiteful one. And FYI Gothamist was making a profit.
8
he could've just closed the NY shop...
His "essay" on free markets and why he hates unions at companies he creates cite his love "working shoulder to shoulder". I would love to know when he put in a 40 hour week shoulder to shoulder with the Gothamist or DNAinfo staff. Give me a break.
41
40 hour week-what is that? Either you work 3 part time jobs with no benefits to make ends meet or have a full-time job where 55-60 hours is the norm. Workers in America have no idea what a reasonable life could be like. (see: European countries like Germany, Denmark & France) Before you tell me to move there if I like it so much, believe me I've thought of it and I would love to go. I won't quit my job that pays my children's college tuition so that they won't be indebted to college loans for the rest of their entire life. It's my choice and it's my responsibility and I accept that, but I do think there's a better way and we should be finding a way to strip the powers from these greedy billionaires instead of giving them more with the tax cuts and deprivation of healthcare for children & elders & the poor and lack of action in this horrible & unConstitutional government that we now have. Provide for the general welfare? Not anymore. We have lost the meaning of the common good & the golden rule.
People here are really bashing this guy Ricketts but if you read his letter it's not quite an act of revenge or retaliation or hate or spite or all the things I am reading here: It's digital publishing, and it's like trying to squeeze water out of a rock. And he tried anyway - for eight years!
Last line in his letter: "I'm hopeful that in time, someone will crack the code on a business that can support exceptional neighborhood storytelling for I believe telling those stories remains essential."
89
What makes you so sure we should take him at his word?
8
I hope he is truly sincere about that last line in his letter, I really do. But as challenging as the online publishing model is, there's a "my-way-or-the-highway" quality to this that is not sitting well with me.
5
Because he didn't crack the code either.
2
This is wonderful news. Anybody who behaves this way shouldn't be anywhere near news. We already have enough propaganda pretending to be news. From the fake left to the far right a small group of billionaires is calling the the shots.
4
Totally stopped reading Gothamist in the last few months because of the unpoliced nastiness in the comments sections.
6
"Class War?" Of course not. it's just that people who have property can exercise their property rights. And don't kid yourselves, wage slaves are slaves.
7
For those trying to find past articles of the Gothamist, go to http://web.archive.org/web/*/gothamist.com
2
People often stay at their companies due to loyalty, job security, or even comfort / fear / relationships, even if there are better opportunities out there. That puts them at a disadvantage when negotiating with their employer. If the employees, as a group, feel they are being mistreated, underpaid, or are lacking the job security to take care of their needs, then it makes sense for them to organize. Each employee alone often cannot create systemic change
Joe points back to the early days of the unions and how they helped the nation and our workers; yet claims that today's society is different. I don't buy that. It was announced this week that the wealth gap between the rich and the middle / lower classes is the greatest it's ever been in the history of this nation. Even with booming employment. This is possible when those at the top reap the lion's share of the rewards from the increased productivity of their employees and decreasing dollars paid per unit of production.
Joe is proud of the businesses he's created and it's great he had the initiative to start them, but I find it odd that he's blaming the closing of this particular business on his employees. Without hard working loyal employees, he wouldn't have a $2.1 billion net worth. It clearly wasn't his effort alone that generated that wealth. This business was failing; and due to that, his employees were likely in a position to feel insecure with their jobs and incomes. Therefore, they fought for change.
18
He thinks he made a point against Unions when he really just showed his true colors, mainly ingratitude to the people who were busting their butts for him.
54
The Times would do well to scoop up these reporters and get back into covering local news.
92
Christine - it's "too expensive" for the Times - that's why they made cuts in the first place. I'm not sure why people commenting here (not just you) fail to realize that.
8
If only. WaPo tried this and nearly asphyxiated. Under the smart and clever Marcus Brauchli, no less.
1
So I read his blog post. Management and labor working side by side to solve a problem? When has Management “EVER” asked for Labor’s input on anything? The answer is never, unless there is a Union.
31
Hmmm....this really depends on the organization. No organization I have ever been a part of after 20+ years and 8 companies has ever not solicited and valued the input of all its employees, including its most junior. I couldn't imagine working for a company that didn't, and if I did, I would leave, partly because I would know that company couldn't be as successful as it could be. I'm not saying my employers are representative of most, but my entire career has been working for media organizations or companies who build technology for media organizations.
3
Gothamist was solid and was making a ton of money. They were also very critical of Ricketts before he bought and shuttered them.
This kind of retaliation is the very reason we need strong unions. But ever since the 80s support for labor has been in steep decline in this country. Businessmen are hailed as gods by the working class, who seem to have infinite patience for money to trickle-down. Meanwhile wealth disparity grows larger, more people work themselves to death just to live, and we're all scratching our heads wondering why it's happening.
For those who say suck it up, remember: today it's Gothamist reporters, tomorrow it's your job.
460
I don’t understand how anyone thinks a union can force a privately held business to do their bidding and think that the owner doesn’t have the choice to close if that is what they want to do. This a classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. These employees are lucky to be getting very generous severance. I am sure Ricketts could have done a lot less - it’s all coming out of his pocket.
9
... and yesterday, it was the nation's air traffic controllers shut out by Reagan. Some of us really do have long memories.
7
"...making a ton of money." That is a phrase often used to muddy the waters when someone wants to avoid mentioning that it is losing money, since you can claim it refers to revenue and not profits.
Don't like this guy at all, but do like an honest argument. Unless you know better...and they were really profitable? Doubt it.
2
A curse upon all Ricketts touches.
24
Go back to the basement, Cubbies -- you're banished until Ricketts have vanished. You think I'm kidding? This stuff invoked, really works. With apologies to Steve Goodman...
We need a Spotify to make journalism profitable again.
1
I want to believe that but honest question: Is Spotify making music profitable?
2
Spotify is losing it's shirt. It's pricing model doesn't work.
Billionaires gonna billionaire.
15
Shame on you, Mr. Ricketts and your Board. You have no problem with unionized athletes. Why should writers be treated differently? This is not a business decision, but more of a political statement, and as a Chicagoan and a Cubs fan, it stinks!
19
Why should the Cubs be treated differently? Mainly. They are very profitable.
6
Digital reporters are not superstar athletes.
2
@ Epicurus, napa "Digital reporters are not superstar athletes"
No indeed.
They usually have three-digit IQs.
With all due respect, almost all of today's popular media outlets, from WaPo to WSJ to NYT to Fox to FB to Twitter are owned by billionaire oligarchs.
10
True, but, fortunately, not all "billionaire oligarchs" are alike...
3
The Times metro staff has also been slashed.
9
What a shame.
8
Mr. Ricketts, esprit de corps? Give me a break. That corrosive dynamic you speak of? It starts with management, it always does. As long as it's your money? Fair enough. But it's my labor. And, when you and I work together we do not sit on a seesaw (your words), we sit at a table like adults and reach common ground about the direction of "our" company. You say you want to work with me "to deliver" something exceptional? Baloney. The reality is you want me to be intimidated just enough to never speak up, and you expect me to be happy, and apologetic, working for peanuts. How fair is that?
398
He doesn't expect you to work for peanuts anymore.
4
Supply and demand. Turns out, there a massive supply of quality writers in search of and audience and a byline, whereas the demand (ad dollars and subscribers fees) is quite limited. No amount go-union-go sentiment is going to change this equaiton -- in digital publishing, entertainment, sports, or any field where a significant part of the compensation is gaining fame or being around famous people.
1
Wow. Your comment was very well written! Nice!
sfist reader checking in -- this is definitely a bummer. Hopefully they can make the archives available somehow for reference. The site was a great alternative to getting news via Facebook community groups.
4
There are a lot of folks on this board complaining about Mr. Rickett's decision. It does seem like he acted petulantly: at the very least, a good "business decision" would have tried to salvage some value from the loss-making business, perhaps via sale. His decision to shut it down directly suggests he had ulterior motives.
But for all those folks complaining about Ricketts: what did you pay for the journalism you coveted? You pay for the NYT presumably. Did you subscribe to and support DNAinfo and Gothamist? How could this end any other way?
13
Not an excuse, but just wondering: did DNAInfo or Gothamist reach out for donations? Subscription dollars? Wikipedia, The Guardian, WNYC -- they ask and I give. NYTimes -- they block content and I subscribe. I don't recall either fundraising model on DNAInfo or Gothamist.
2
Gotham isn’t was not a paywall site so readers were under no obligation to pay. Disappointed that this article didn’t mention the’ previous scrubbing of Gothamist news archives and forum threads shortly after he purchased the site
5
If Rickets really believed in local news, he would have absorbed the losses, and said it is a "philanthropic gift" to the people of New York. He bought it to close it down. If he was such a great businessman, DNAibnfo wouldn't have lost so much money.
25
He might have continued to do this if the staff hadn't unionized which poisons any goodwill, turning wage negotiations into battlegrounds with labor hurling unending insults. Owners don't need this ugliness which rarely happens in professional sports.
7
@ Epicurus, napa "Owners don't need this ugliness which rarely happens in professional sports."
You appear to have an... interesting... definition of "rarely:"
NFL lockouts & strikes:
7/3-7/15, 1968
7/13-8/3, 1970
7/1-8/10, 1974
9/21-11/16, 1982
9/22-10/15, 1987
3/12-7/25, 2011
NBA lockouts:
7/1-9/18, 1995
7/1-1/6, 1999
7/1-12/8, 2011
NHL lockouts & strikes:
4/92
10/1/1994 - 1/11/1995
9/16/2004 - 7/22/2005
9/15/2012 - 1/19/13
MLB lockouts & strikes:
4/1-4/13, 1972
2/8-2/25, 1973
3/1-3/17, 1976
4/1-4/8, 1980
6/12-7/31, 1981
8/6-8/7, 1985
2/15-3/18, 1990
8/12/1994 – 4/2/1995
Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/03/us/pro-sports-lockouts-and-strikes-fast-fa...
No further proof is necessary--to demonstrate how little Liberals know about economics. Two struggling, money-losing entities vote to unionize? What did they hope to gain---to drive these businesses even further into the ditch?
The Union organizers are guilty of malpractice. Those who voted for them are guilty of mass idiocy. All got what they deserved.
27
No further proof is necessary to demonstrate how little conservatives know about economics. As was clearly noted in this article, the sites had been losing money for their entire history. The unionization just gave their owner a way to quit by blaming others.
What new costs did unionization bring to the sites? There was no collective bargaining agreement established, no pay or benefit changes. Who's to say what the agreement would have looked like?
Yet again, your post shows that the current crop of conservative thinkers are far more eager to call people names and score points than actually engage in reasoned discussion.
42
As a snowflake libtard, I agree. A union is a two-edged sword that more closely ties employees to the actual profits/losses of the business. When the business is making fat profits it can be great for the workers, but when it's already hemorrhaging money I don't know what else anyone should expect other than a prompt shutdown.
11
Why would he have to wait for a union contract to know this is a bad deal; unions drive up costs everywhere they exist; that's precisely the point of forming a union. The author somehow thinks it's possible the union would have negotiated a contract paying lower wages and benefits, never happened before and never will.
8
The dumbing down of America, on steroids. Profit over principles.
8
Principles are critical to any great organization, but even the most principled organization needs to make money to survive. Even non-profits need to make money - they just don't have to pay the government taxes on it. But non-profits that cannot cover their costs will go under.
5
You don't invest your labor, time. and money in a business for "principles". You invest in it for profit. Liberals think the world owes them something. Get off your butts and start your own business. See how easy it is for you.
6
Non-profits are just what the name implies. They don't generate income in excess of their operating costs in order to enrich non-working shareholders.
Profits are money stolen from those who do the work.
First Teen Vogue, now this!! The voice of the resistance is being repressed!
5
At 9 million readers a month with only 115 staff people, this is a pathetic display of corporate greed by a billionaire and exactly why unions are necessary in America.
49
The "9 million readers" is a worthless stat unless they either were paid subscribers, or a sufficient draw to attract advertisers to the sites. The answer is they were neither.
9
He made good on his threat - and it's actually better for everyone all around, including those suddenly let go, to have it end guillotine-style, rather than the slow, painful demise of most money-losing businesses.
7
@Stephen Clark: That's so easy to say if you are not one of the people who is suddenly without a job & an income.
6
Message to L: Life goes on.
Message to SC, I've had both versions happen to me, and it is by far less painful to have the time to look for/interview for other jobs while your current one gradually fades away. Instead of coming to work one day and finding out that your job and the business is gone. May you have the opportunity to experience both yourself, best wishes and all that to you....
so basically... Joe Ricketts is more interesting in proving a hard point about his ideological opposition to Unions. Yes, Unions, those terrible institutions that have destroyed the viability of news organizations like the NYT and WaPO (smh). Well, he fits the neat mold of MMs (Media Moguls) who use their businesses to put a thumb on public debate, and was never interested in hard reporting and journalism. Who cares that a 100+ NYers (including a friend who has been in the newsroom for over 10 years) just lost their jobs for him to make his point... Thank god we still have ProPublica and the Times. They have their heads on straight and will be getting my money ad infinitum. Bye, Ricketts.
14
"Reaching this decision wasn't easy ..."
Yes, it was ... employees chose to join a union; Mr. Ricketts immediately chose to close. It's likely his decision was made before the employees' vote.
8
Everyone who got three months severance should pool their cash, and together they can probably bootstrap restarting their publications, except perhaps this time they should build in a better revenue model. People are starting to get it. I'd pay $3-5 a month for news so a reporter can eat.
16
... he argued that “unions promote a corrosive us-against-them dynamic that destroys the esprit de corps businesses need to succeed.”
Mr. Ricketts, your mindset is EXACTLY why we need unions, b/c the only "esprit de corps" you'd recognize would be the one you have in common with your fellow union-busting CEO's.
26
Free press means the freedom to own a press. Or shut one down, if one owns it.
11
Well, yes but... I think you miss the point which most of the labor laws value, which is that these decisions are often more about spite than profits, and about fair pay (and fairness in general) for workers. What I would urge you to do is read some Adam Smith (yes, the "Wealth of Nations..." author) and read it closely: Smith was quite liberal, and made note of the pernicious (his word) effect of excessive profit seeking by business owners. He also repeatedly states that without proper (meaning sufficient) pay businesses cannot survive in the long term. You are engaging in some zero-sum approach to all this, which may be a starting point or some crude benchmark in terms of analysis, but it's not reality or even good theory.
1
Union busting at its worst. Oligarchs like Ricketts are partying likes it's 1917 again. Ricketts couldn't even wait for his huge tax cut from the Republican Party before deciding whether to throw his workers under the bus.
9
No matter what the format, news will never be profitable. It shouldn't be.
7
@ FunkyIrishman, member of the resistance "news will never be profitable"
The Murdoch family seems to be doing quite well.
Oh, wait -- you said "news" (*without* any scare-quotes).
My bad.
Then who should lose the money??
This is such a biased story. You make it seem like Ricketts shut the site down because it wasn’t profitable. He shut the site down because the workers exercised their rights and voted to unionize.
There are little to no meaningful remedies available to workers in this situation. And this is exactly why unionization is at an all-time low. Your article should’ve made this clear. Instead, you played precisely into the employer’s narrative.
5
I hope the union will be paying the leave and severance, or else you may be forced to admit that it is the owner who is generous in this situation.
8
Ever heard of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) which requires employers to provide advance notice of mass layoffs or else pay the employees in lieu of notice?
Makes one long for the old-fashioned age of literal head-busting Pinkerton-style union bashing. At least they were upfront about the need to keep the peons in their place without muddying the water with self-serving expression of "regret".
8
Ricketts unfortunately represents greedy and small-minded Babbitry. He's painted a malevolent view of unions that has little to do with reality. If he studied any history than Ricketts would know the central role that unions played giving a middle class life to tends of millions of Americans. It's the evisceration of unions that has contributed so mightily to the evisceration of the American middle class.
Deciding in a fit of pique to fire all his employees is the act of a deplorable human being.
15
We are not talking about children working in a cotton mill. Deciding not to lose even more money is not a fit of pique. What exactly did the staff hope to gain from unionizing? Job security?
3
Well, seems like they made their own bed and pushed it a little too far. That's what happens when you overvalue your worth.
13
How is attempting to organize overvaluing oneself?
3
Is this how the free market is supposed to work? I'm confused.
3
This is a man who wasted untold millions on the presidential campaigns of Mitt Romney and Jeb! Bush. He obviously does not care about money. I'm sorry for my Chicago friends, but I hope the Cubs languish in loserdom for as long as this family owns the team.
9
It’s his money to waste. Why is that so hard to understand? Are we now going to form collectives and get rid of capitalism? Because it worked so well in the former Soviet Unions - and now in Venezuela.
1
Guess they wanted their writers to be content working for exposure. Right.
4
If it were truly about money, why not leave the archives up of both websites, so they would still generate ad revenue from ad impressions & clicks? It just doesn't jibe.
5
The fourth paragraph seems to indicate that the articles will be archived at some point: "All other articles promptly vanished from the sites; an official at DNAinfo said they would be archived online."
Maybe you should make him an offer to buy the assets.
1
Perhaps someone can explain union mentality to me, remembering that we are not in the 1800s any more.
Unions today are nothing more than extortionists.
10
Um, you, an individual, are supposed to bargain ON EQUAL FOOTING with a giant corporation? Or do those without massive economic power pool their power and bargain collectively, at least coming somewhat close to a more level playing field. We still need worker protections: health care, retirement, equal for women, family leave, and many, many more issues. You take for granted all that the unions did for workers' rights in the 1800s. What was won then could easily be taken away now ... and the declining standard of living is, in part (IN PART, I emphasize) a result of the declining power of labor unions.
13
And the reason WHY we “aren’t in the 1800s anymore” is exactly BECAUSE of unions! Go to any search engine, type “thank a union,” and count the ways that organized labor has historically benefitted the worker. Although at times it doesn’t seem like it society has moved beyond the good old days of serfdom and sweatshops, in large part to unions. There must be a counterbalance to management power.
People often *died* for what many now take for granted, dismiss, marginalize, or try to destroy.
8
I bargain with giant corporations, and it works! I got a higher starting base salary, and several big bonuses at my last job, by explaining what I knew I could get elsewhere. You absolutely don’t need a union to bargain.
6
Quote: “In September, Mr. Ricketts, a conservative who supported President Trump in last year’s election, raised the ante with a post on his blog titled “Why I’m Against Unions At Businesses I Create,” in which he argued that “unions promote a corrosive us-against-them dynamic that destroys the esprit de corps businesses need to succeed.””
Excuse me while I have a good laugh. Unions also hold management accountable for how they treat their employees, which is, I suspect, what really sticks in Mr. Ricketts’s craw, all the noble prose aside.
As someone who was once in a similar war of attrition with a newspaper publisher that also used the same union-busting logic, my best wishes to all former staffers; may they all quickly find new and even better positions.
313
legacy costs of union workers produce nothing but expense...ask the federal government
Unions excerise extortion so that union bosses can use due to buy influence with member due and maintain their own lifestyles. Corruption is rampant - and public employee untions are the worst. The time for old style unions has passed and they union leadership hasn’t recognized this yet.
Reread Ricketts truthful comments Corrosive atmosphere us aginst management our way or the high way we call the shots you cant treat us that way we will strike and not work we will slow down we will feather bed we will act violently.
And you wonder why we don't want unions
The means to communicate via digital purveyor doesn't have a drawback. However, to become economically the business must endure. A merger left reporters without salary position and place on aministrative leave "how sad".
Gothamist was one of my favorite places to visit. I hope they and the staff of DNAInfo can find somewhere where their earnest, humorous and thorough journalism can keep NYC expats informed about the greatest city in the world.
5
Ah, the Golden Rule: he who has the gold, makes the rule.
10
I'm unclear why you cite Patch as being a "bright spot" for local news. It might be profitable, but if it is duplicating content across 1,000 sites it is clearly not providing much boots-on-the-ground local journalism. Certainly the Patch sites in the Bay Area where I live are a shadow of their former selves and do little original reporting.
9
I work for Patch in New Jersey - I cover Middlesex and Monmouth counties - and I regularly break news that has not appeared anywhere else. It's a fun, interesting job and one I really value.
10
In countries where workers participate in the management of companies this rarely happens because the workers who often know better how to run the business than the owners want to preserve their jobs.
9
Just another example of why it's foolhardy anymore to require everything important to justify itself by making money. Some way needs to be found for journalists to make a living wage - they provide an incredibly important service, and professional-grade local journalism is one of the things that has been most thoroughly devastated by the 'everything-is-free' internet fumble. Ricketts' gesture was an incredibly petty one, but he was losing money on the venture apparently. Why should journalism be held hostage to little men who want to make a buck?
10
If Mr. Ricketts was losing money, I presume he was "fortunate" enough to not pay corporate taxes?
7
You're certainly free to start your own subsidized media venture, using YOUR money.
9
Not sure of the point of the comment. America taxes profits not losses, I doubt the writer pays taxes on income he has not earned.
3
Many companies have employees that have unionized and have done well! Isn't that obvious. To me the decision to shut down those two news outlets speaks to those with money and power wanting to maintain that money and power - and to be frank, so would I! Though Ricketts indicates it was not an easy decision it clearly was an easier decision than the alternative -
aka the right choice.
3
I read DNAinfo every day. Someone else should resurrect these sites and rehire many of these reporters. Local news is essential. There is room for someone with more vision, smarts and sense to come into this space to turn it around. Mr. Ricketts is acting like a spoiled brat who didn't get his way; if he's that offended by people wanting to make a decent living for their hard work-- than that says a lot about how he thinks about other people and what his moral character is.
8
Yes, someone really should resurrect these sites. Is there anyone interested in a solid money-losing opportunity?
7
Businesses lose money when they have an inadequate revenue-producing model.
Online journalism depends on fee-for-service and/or advertising.
Clearly, Ricketts and his sales and marketing team dropped the ball. And the journalists paid for it.
This is why we need not-for-profit news sites.
Germany has lots of public broadcasting - this is what we need for every kind of journalism.
Journalistic venues should not be in the exclusive power of billionaires to create and shut down.
Mr. Ricketts is just another billionaire threat to the public good.
336
Germany has lots of unions also. This is war and the American worker has all but lost.
5
But even not-for-profit organizations have to at least break even. When the organization loses money as this one did according to the article, it makes no difference if it's not-for-profit.
1
Other European countries, including all of the Nordic region, have several public tv and radio channels, too.
For some reason after reading this article, I recalled graffiti on a wall in San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury during the 1967 Summer of Love . EAT THE RICH!
7
@ jerry pritikin, chicago "EAT THE RICH!"
...for they are crunchy, and taste good with ketchup.
This is so sad. More journalists out of work now, hoping to land a new post in a particularly tight market nowadays. Also, the Guild is pretty worthless when it comes to protecting its members. It has sold out its members before and will do nothing to help these "new" members. The Guild hierarchy is only about itself, imo. Good luck to all of the hard-working folks who were part of DNAinfo and Gothamist.
5
If the billionaire treated his employees like owners, giving them private stock or timing bonuses to the success of the company, then maybe they wouldn't have felt the need to unionize. While he complains a union takes away from his idea of capitalism, all it really does is create a slightly different relationship to a cost, i.e., labor. Sure, labor costs might go up. So might the cost of electricity and pencils. It's a free market and a free country. Americans have a right to form community, including unions. It really shows how arrogant the billionaire is, because the employees dared to get uppity. It's too bad they are out of jobs, but the billionaire doesn't deserve them.
9
It is indeed a free market and a free country, which is why Ricketts was free to cut his losses and move on.
6
If he treated the employees like owners, then some of the employees wouldn't have been making any money, as their company wasn't profitable. There are different risk elements to being an owner and being an employee.
It stinks but they played chicken and lost. It's really that simple. The employees didn't correctly gauge the marketplace and their (lack of) leverage.
If they really believe that their unionization move was economically justified they can create their own digitial news sites.
What the New York Times, Mr. Ricketts, and too many other leading mainstream corporate media outlets do not understand is that the fundamental paradigm upon which journalism has usually been funded has shifted for the foreseeable future. The Internet has shriveled newspaper ad dollars into dimes.
Here in Chicago, during much of 2009, the corporate parents of the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun-Times, and the Chicago Reader were in simultaneous bankruptcy. A 2011 study stated that while foundations have contributed more than $180 million to local news start-ups over five years, budget cuts in traditional media have constituted a $1.6 billion drop in newspaper editorial spending per year – “billions out, millions in.” Time and resource-intensive local investigative journalism has been particularly hard hit. The advance of the Internet and the related steady decline in ad revenue for newspapers has created a persisting and widespread structural funding problem for local journalism.
Most localities need a strong nonprofit news presence. Those nonprofits will need funding mixes, including micro or reader funding, foundations, and subscriptions. But the creation of local special service districts for nonprofit journalism, like hospital or fire station tax districts, must be the centerpiece of any long term funding formula for journalism in the digital age.
6
Having only been in a union once (when I was a 14 and 15 year old employee of Shoprite and Waldbaums) personal experience is limited. From the outside it's easy to see the endless chain of union bigs getting taken down in corruption scandals. The idea of placing an inflatable rat at a job site irks me too as it seems like a bullying tactic.
I realize their historical (and perhaps future) importance to this country but unless you're in a union or related to one through a relative it's hard to see them as anything besides a system to game. So many of my old friends are in them (electricians, sandhogs, cops, and teachers) and the way they've bragged about their bulletproof job security over the years seems crazy.
Please Unions: work on a hearts and minds campaign to convince me otherwise because the tired "working families" line doesn't carry any weight for the rest of the working families out there who toil at least as hard in jobs with no guarantees.
10
@RickNYC, Brooklyn ""the tired 'working families' line doesn't carry any weight for the rest of the working families out there who toil at least as hard in jobs with no guarantees"
So rather than bringing all families up, you think union families should be torn down.
And because you're not in a union yourself, you blithely assume that everything that you and many workers still have only because of the last century's successes of the labor movement -- higher pay, 40-hour work weeks, overtime, vacations, healthcare, fixed schedules, freedom from arbitrary termination, not competing with child labor, etcetc -- will continue, even after the labor movement has been completely demolished.
Yes, that approach has clearly worked out quite well for the last 40 years or so.
And now, with the Publicans in charge of all three branches of the federal government, and about 37 states, we'll see how it works when magnified for the next few years.
Good luck with that.
The DNAinfo journalists who suddenly found themselves without jobs should take a few days to enjoy some much-deserved time with their families, and then get in touch with one of the 180-plus members of Local Independent Online News Publishers. If you've got the drive to be an entrepreneur, we've got a network of independent publishers who are ready and willing to help you establish a news outlet that is focused on your community.
This story unfortunately points to Patch as "is one relatively bright spot on the local-news landscape."
Patch has gutted its local news gathering, chosing to publish non-local networked content.
What is a bright spot are the individual efforts of LION Publishers. Our organization just held our annual conference in Chicago this past weekend, where 200 local news entrepreneurs and industry experts formed the largest ever local indie news gathering.
The end of DNAinfo is terrible in the short term for the employees who suddenly find themselves pushed out. But it's not a bad-news banner headline for local news online. Instead, it's a chance for talented, motivated entrepreneurs to work together rather than work for the Man.
13
Now Mr. Ricketts won't have pickets.
6
So a Republican Billionaire and Trump Super-pac donor ($1 Million+), Joe Rickets buys the most progressive online journalistic voice in New York (Gothamist), only to shut it down ~6 months later, because journalists unionize for a living wage. Hmmmmm... DNA Info was never profitable, but Gothamist has been profitable for a long time, and would have survived just fine outside of this malarkey.
Smells like 'journalists unionizing' is a poor excuse to blow smoke of what may have actually happened here. A Republican/Trump-funding Billionaire purchased a highly liberal/progressive/trusted voice Gothamist, only to figure out a way to *Shut It Down* months later, which they successfully did. The amount of money they paid for Gothamist is a small fee to shut down such a powerful voice.
I call Shenanigans!
344
'such a powerful voice'.
These were local-news, mostly social-life focused blogs. Not exactly woodward and bernstein.
3
I think you're overvaluing The Gothamist's worth. If that was the playbook, they'd be going after far bigger fish with their billions...
This has more to do with the death of a certain type of journalism than anything else...
And no, I'm not an alt right idiot. As progressive as they come. But it frightens me when my brethren start to peddle conspiracy theories...
2
It's far from being a "conspiracy theory" to know that Trump and his backers are virulently anti-union.
Where will I get my clickbait articles about the subway and how everything is Cuomo’s fault?? But seriously, this is a disgusting setback for American employees exercising their rite to unionize. Hopefully new and better outlets with fair employee politics and with actual journalistic integrity spring up to take their place.
12
Honan has a point about journalism becoming a "postcollege hobby" based on the bios of many online news sites these days.
6
Two words:
Atlas Shrugged!
11
... shrugged off... a website! Oh dear! How will we ever survive without the “Atlases” like Joe Ricketts of the world!!!
The writings of Ayn Rand are about as serious a work of political “philosophy“ as The Lord of The Rings.
: ) L
5
"Business decision" my eye. If it were a business decision, he would have tried to sell the assets instead of obliterating them. This was pure vindictiveness.
p.s. You need a new tailor, Joe.
174
@pcal, San Francisco "p.s. You need a new tailor, Joe"
What he needs is a better diet, and some physical exercise more strenuous than flogging the peasantry.
Probably thinks his billions will allow him to just buy a new (or, like Cheney, a first) heart, when his time comes.
What a spoiled brat Ricketts is. This sounds like a toddler's tantrum. If you feel like you have a worthwhile product, why aren't you paying your employees what they feel they are worth? Why do you begrudge them earning a living?
47
Do you begrudge him earning a profit?
6
He doesn't need to! He's a billionaire. This is pocket change for him. He is simply anti-Union. The decline of Unions is one of the major reasons for the decline of America.
I belonged to a University teachers Union. Without the Union, I probably wouldn't had had a job or a livable wage. Every contract negotiation started with a State demand for decreases in wages, pensions, work conditions, etc. When we settled, we got (small) increases.
We had to go on two illegal strikes to get a fair contract, but we did, in the end.
Individuals have no leverage against a corporation or State. Shut down a State's University system, and suddenly they negotiate fairly.
2
The most entertaining part of this story was the comments. It's astounding how many of these Socialists think they have a right to tell someone how to spend their money.
Ricketts was losing money on this enterprise. The introduction of the union and the upcoming demands for more money and benefits meant he wold have been losing more money. No matter how much money a person has he doesn't throw good money after bad.
2
Ricketts' decision to shut down the site without leaving up the archived articles is particularly spiteful. Reporters don't have access to their clips and citizens don't have access to stories about our communities. DNAinfo and Gothamist both covered transportation access in NYC and interviewed our staff at Center for Independence of the Disabled, NY. We appreciated their hard work, accuracy, and integrity.
77
What is forgotten is the family of "reply" commentators with different nom de plumes "Artistic fame" "Walter Sobchak Esq", Nanlando" "Marmot Mom" among others who will now not be able to comment on the articles written on Gothamist NY as well as to each other often more amusing or spot on the the articles Gothamist printed we have lost a digital anonymous family.
13
Mr. Ricketts wrote that he founded DNAinfo in 2009 “because I believe people care deeply about the things that happen where they live and work,”
Ricketts is a typical Republican fraud. He founded it because he only cares about profits. He also went on TV during the Presidential campaign to sing the praises of the Greed Over Party gang. Just another Traitor Trump stooge
21
How do you spend your money that you are looking to throw it away? Do you give so much to charity that it will make you bankrupt in 10 years? Or maybe work for free?
5
Poor Ricketts.
He only has suffiucient money to last about ten thousand lifetimes.
Ironic he pens an anti union screed but owns the cubs, workers/ players have one of the strongest unions around. Will miss them both. Especially sorry for gothaMist trolls.
16
So, where do we go now for the hyper local news?
6
“If you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater his effort the heavier the world bore down upon his shoulders - What would you tell him?"
I…don't know. What…could he do? What would you tell him?"
To shrug.”
5
More Randian fantasies. Ricketts had no time to determine what -- if any -- effect the unionization would have on the bottom line before pulling the plug. He sure wasn't bleeding, buckling or trembling. Nor did the weight of the world (or anything else) bear down on his shoulders. So any shrugging which he did was entirely voluntary.
The real lesson for post-industrial Americans. Know your place -- or else!
6
These websites have a loyal readership. Hopefully they'll be recreated as Gothamists and DnaInformation.
6
Rather than work with the devoted staff, Mr. Ricketts chooses to pick up his marbles and fire them all. Fake news blooms like algae.
14
I️ read Gothamist daily but I’m shocked they thought to Unionize. Their articles were fun, but horribly written. Most of the comments in the comment section were critiques on the grammar or corrections on the facts of the story. It’s funny they say this shouldn’t be a post-college hobby when this site always read like a few 23yo kids typing these articles up in their PJ’s while watching Netflix. I️ really thought these were kids who used this as a resume builder. A large majority of their articles were just lengthy comments on reporting from other, more established sites and periodicals. That said, it was still good entertainment and I️ liked that the focus was local. I️ will miss it, but this was a dumb call. I️ support unions, but WGA is famous for flipping for profit. They don’t care at all about their members. They only want more dues.
20
agreed. biting the hand that feeds you is not smart. i cannot imagine the conditions were that deplorable
5
Being a Trump supporter is what really ... "destroys the esprit de corps businesses need to succeed.” Because a Trump supporter is not for the best of America but is essentially in it for himself and that patriotism doesn't really exist but only the pursuit of the dollar is what really counts in America. But when you've got the opportunity, wrap yourself in the flag, just to demonstrate your patriotism.
17
Nice job you have here. It would be a shame if something happened to it.
17
This is very frustrating at many levels not only because both sites were highly entertaining and informative but also because both sites played an important role in investigating and reporting to their readers important news of the day.
One example is gothamist's focus on the high rate of casualties suffered by pedestrians and bicyclists because of inadequate enforcement of traffic laws in New York City. By making more people aware of this issue more people will act on it and demand change in enforcement of traffic laws.
As the New York Times moved away from local news reporting these sites filled an important void with vibrant smart young people writing for them which has now been lost and will be hard to replace.
The owner should have taken the higher road and found a more effective way to keep both sites going longer.
36
As I understand the situation, the workers at the New York division just decided to try and force Mr. Ricketts to put up with whatever they demand or they would picket and strike. In exchange for this treatment he would continue to pay them out of his own pocket because the publications they work for don't produce enough revenue to pay their current bills.
I'm wondering why ANYONE would put up with a situation like that. How can it be considered greedy to want to stop the bleeding before it kills you.
160
Incorrect. They voted to unionize and begin collective bargaining. There were no demands made.
10
"...stop the bleeding before it kills you."
How rich is Mr. Ricketts? How much money was he losing every year on these enterprises? How many centuries before his fortune would disappear? Is he not likely to die of something else before then?
5
Apparently, "the Gothamist has been profitable for a long time, and would have survived just fine outside of this malarkey." (see above response)
6
A sad day. I've been reading Gothamist almost since it started. It covered a wider range of local stories than the Times does (sorry, guys). But many of us regulars expected something was going to happen after the sale to Ricketts. I thought it was going to be death by attrition, Gothamist and its sister sites slowly withering away. Never figured it would end with Ricketts' thermonuclear option.
21
Disheartening and infuriating. There is something fundamentally wrong with this country.
35
Your answer is right in the article:
"Mr. Ricketts, whose family owns the Chicago Cubs, wrote bluntly, “As long as it’s my money that’s paying for everything, I intend to be the one making the decisions about the direction of the business.”
sad sad sad.
3
There is. It’s unions.
5
@ Jerry, New York "There is something fundamentally wrong with this country"
@ Chris, Florida "There is. It's unions."
If you ask most Trump Chumps when "America was Great," they'll say the 1950s, the postwar boom. That was the era of the greatest explosion in wealth and opportunity that our country has ever seen. It's when the great American middle class hit its peak.
It's also when the unions were strongest -- over a third of the private sector was organized.
The highest marginal tax rates were >90%; the national debt was over 130% of GDP; the federal minimum wage was worth far more than it is today; and antitrust and other regulations were far more heavily enforced than they are now.
Governmental supports -- Social Security, Medicare, the GI Bill, Pell Grants, the rest of the New Deal and Great Society -- were all generous by today's standards.
All of those "socialist" interferences in the Sacred Free Market™ are exactly what brought us that success.
EVERYthing that conservatives and Publicans have been calling "anti-growth," "job-killing," was exactly what created the middle class that they've spent the last 40 years demolishing.
Nothing sadder -- or more frustrating -- than seeing so many of the middle-class beneficiaries of all that "socialism" buying into the plutocratic propaganda and lies that are now destroying that very middle class.
This gullibility is what's "fundamentally wrong with this country."
But you can't fix stupid.
Loved DNAinfo, really gave such great coverage to our little neighborhood in Brooklyn. Really appreciated what you did with your money Mr Ricketts to create this amazing publication and much needed public service, sorry to hear you are a Trumpster and have drunk too many a glass from the poisoned well of union hating.
11
its not union hating, but every time union heads like pat lynch defends the indefensible actions of thug cops , or when you observe the way union protected city workers respond to complaints , its hard to not have some disgust .
6
Mr. Ricketts seems to be exhibiting a bit of an "us against them dynamic" himself.
18
Here's what the reporters should do: set up a business entity with the intention of forming an employee-owned news organization. Make sure to put a good business plan together and then try to get a business loan or crowd-funding.
You already know New York, have tons of loyal readers, and are top professionals. This is doable.
144
Why is it doable, when nearly every digital media company is hemorrhaging money?
Boo hoo. Employees have to realize that companies need to make money at the end of the day.
5
Since when are businesses owed free labor?
Good grief, the current love affair among some with the Gilded Age is astonishingly naive.
5
Or might this simply be another aspect to the GOP/Trumpian strategy of "keep 'em poor, and keep 'em stupid".
Because all was -- apparently -- sunshine and roses before the decision to unionize. The fact that this issue was what led to Ricketts' pulling the plug says a lot more about his attitude to "uppity" workers than it does about any affect which it might -- or might not -- have had on the bottom line.
4
Sad. DNAinfo was pretty awful, but it was the only hyper-local game in town.
Very disappointing... DNAinfo was an important source for local news in the 5 boroughs - especially as the big publications all cut coverage.
But businesses have to make money to stay in business... Sad...
4
Seconding this for Chicago. It's a huge loss.
The profits never materialized because they all went to Facebook and Google. A couple of grifters if there ever was one.
6
Oh, no! Where can I now go to get my daily dose of snark? Gothamist was the best website for local info with just the right amount of attitude. And the comments were priceless.
3
@Anrew, Brooklyn "Gothamist was the best website for local info"
Yet this brilliant billionaire, this titan of commerce, couldn't manage to find a way to monetize and capitalize on it?
What's wrong with this picture?
There are comments here suggesting it was profitable when Ricketts bought it, but the article is unclear (at best) on that.
Anyone know for sure?
What a despicable move by Mr. Ricketts- “unions promote a corrosive us-against-them dynamic that destroys the esprit de corps businesses need to succeed.” Pfft. Nonsense. Employees keep your business running, and if they're happy, then well done. Esprit de corps in a business is something you must develop, sir, and if people are unionizing to fight for workplace protections and better wages, then you aren't doing something right and are responsible. Don't blame employees for your lack of success.
14
there are numerous companies with happy employees that suddenly get pushed to unionize by the unions who just want more dues, no other reason.
3
Another example of a union lifting its members into a better lifestyle, or condemning them to the unemployment office?
3
There seem to be a bunch of Americans who've forgotten that "free trade unions" was one of the principles WWII was fought over.
11
Tough to accept what is passing for reason in this decision. The gloves are off and Amertican labor better get used to the body blows those who have the money are ready to deliver. There is no fealty to anything. but the power and control money offers these "self-made" billionaires.
We are devolving from a nation of free people into a country of Kings, Queens, Princes and Princesses.
5
I disagree. In modern monarchies, Kings, Queens Princes and Princess are made very, very aware of the responsibilities which come with their privileges from the day they are born. The modern press sees to that, presuming that their own families don't.
Billionaires -- not so much. As the most recent billionaire POTUS has made very clear, they can get away with pretty much anything.
Sad to say, but seeing how the American "electoral" process managed to make Donald Trump a head of state, we've gotten to the point where monarchy is looking pretty good. Maybe George Washington should have reconsidered his decision not to accept a Crown.
This is so sad. SFist and Gothamist did some crack reporting on local issues that even local newspapers, like the SF Chron, missed. There are a lot of talented writers and editors who are going to be out of work today and I hope they all land on their feet.
5
While I agree on the good reporting that many of the local reporters did, they tolerated little dissent or disagreement - with their reporting or with other readers' views. It didn't take long to get permanently banned from commenting on sfist.com.
3
This is distressing news. Only quality journalism will provide the people with a check against government and moneyed interests. That is why I have a 7 day print subscription to the New York Times (as well as the WSJ and NY Post for contrast). But even with those, I depended on DNA for local information.
The New York Times should bring back more "street-level reporting" immediately, by hiring some of the DNA / Gothamist people.
9
Poor Joe Ricketts: at the rate Gothamist was losing money he could actually go broke in a couple thousand years. And shame on those greedy workers for wanting democracy in their workplace.
16
If you want democracy in the workplace you should buy some shares! You do realize the owner gets paid last right?
1
How can a paper with 9 million viewers a month lose money every month? Seems like the union vote was the least of this company's worries.
7
Nothing destroys the esprit de corps of a business like shutting it down and deleting the archives.
If Ricketts couldn't figure out a way to make businesses like Gothamist financially viable, he shouldn't have shelled out money for it.
Thanks alot, Joe.
8
This is shocking, Gothamist always had pretty good coverage and generally great commenters. The archives are taken down too. Does anyone know the twitter handles of the reporters? They should quickly regroup with their union's help and create their own new combined reporter site; call it BigAppleNews or something.
4
It's becoming clearer every day that Americans are not willing to pay for quality journalism. We are heading for the future where journalism will continue in either of two forms 1) paid for and controlled by the government (Get ready for "President Trump is greatest president ever - 10 reasons why") B) treated by the charitable investment by the ultrarich. Well...there is a well known saying that "People get the government they deserve" - I guess we get the journalism we deserve.
5
I think a lot of Americans are willing to pay - especially these days - but they haven't been asked to do so in many cases. So much content online is just given away for free. I think the news industry is still figuring out how to best monetize its work, experimenting with different models, pricing plans and so forth - but it doesn't mean it can't happen. The changing fortunes of The Washington Post - now both profitable and on a hiring spree (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/business/washington-post-digital-news... - offers some hope.
This is the problem with everything today. Just look at Rickets Baseball operation. He has no problem paying 9 figures for a single player but refuses to let the grounds crew work beyond 30 hours to attain "full time" status so as not to pay benefits. What's wrong with that noise? A very, very small percentage of what is paid just to players who don't pan out could pay the "living wages" and "benefits" of the 30 men who keep up the world-renowned ballpark but Rickets and others like him will tell you it can not be afforded. It serves as a great example as to how "trickle down" does NOT and will NEVER work. Rather than pay workers, they find it more advantageous to spend Millions on "buying" political influence for more tax breaks and less regulation.
184
What? ...A cheapster?
Guess how many people would kill to be part-time groundskeepers at Wrigley Field? No one besides athletes, producers or on-air talent makes a dime in sports. Even mid-level front office people are paid like receptionists. I used to work in a newsroom at ESPN, and 80% of the room were part-timers. If you somehow advanced to become a fulltimer (these were all bylined writers, btw), you'd make $35k, and have to work every night and weekend. So please, save your sob story about Wrigley groundskeepers not getting benefits. Any industry with intangible benefits (fame or proximity to fame) pays a pittance. That's never going to change.
And yet, neither CEOs, nor anyone else, has ever shown unions as an impediment to business growth.
Nope. It’s never, say, stiff competition, or poor customer service, or simply a bad product as causals. It’s always whatever might benefits employees that becomes the big bad monster. Always.
And CEOs get away with it because a rather large swath of Americans have allowed themselves to believe that they must sacrifice themselves on the altar of billionaires, and that livable wages, unions, universal health insurance, and a robust system of public education are the scourge of our times.
If I were a different kind of person, I might try to profit off such gullibility, too; it’s just that easy to do.
10
That "esprit de corps" will be there, Ricketts, if you pay your writers what they're worth and treat them with respect. Scapegoating unions is the lazy, default excuse that conservatives like Ricketts use to cover for their bad business decisions.
497
Maybe you missed the part where it said the website lost money every month, meaning it wasn't bringing in enough to cover overhead.
3
The reason unions crop up is because owners/mgmt DO NOT treat their employees well (e.g., pay, benefits).
2
"What they're worth." That's the real crux of the issue, isn't it? As nearly every digital publisher knows, most individual writers are not worth much more than the thousands of well-educated, publicity-seeking recent college grads knocking on their door. These writers went all in and bet that they offered more value than they really did to their employer. It happens all the time on an individual level, but for some reason when a bunch of people gang up and demand a raise all at once, it is glorified as labor fighting back against the evil employer.
The reality, as the NYT knows all too well, is that all but a very select few online publishers hemorrhage money. To demand that a business owner subsidize one's dream of being a famous writer is both unrealistic and selfish.
That's unfortunate - Gothamist's quality wasn't great at times, but I felt they fit an enjoyable niche in the NYC newsphere.
1
I have a young friend who has been a hardworking and passionate journalist for DCist for the past three years. She is devastated, not just because she lost her job, but because the opportunities for journalists and writers to do good work and earn a decent living are shrinking rapidly.
The internet eats up and churns out content daily, and is always hungry for more. But it's yet to be seem how content providers will monetize this appetite. And if they will pay the providers enough to make the effort worthwhile. What if the only content people want to view is mindless entertainment and partisan ranting?
Meanwhile, our president attacks the media with broad strokes, further undermining quality journalism, which we need more than ever in an age of easily-accessed bogus news and suspect information.
Sinclair is about to own 70% of local news outlets. Soon, those with deep pockets will own the very information we need to be good citizens. The shutting down of Gothamist shows what can happen: they will buy a media outlet whose politics they dispute, and simply shut it down.
Be very afraid.
96
@ Elizabeth, NYC "Sinclair is about to own 70% of local news outlets. Soon, those with deep pockets will own the very information we need to be good citizens"
What do you mean "soon"?
The experience of last year's unpleasantness - the weaponization of disinformation -- makes it abundantly clear and undeniable that that's already happened.
It is impossible to believe that there's not money to be made in the practice of actual, fact-based journalism; "the market" is crying out for it.
Dynastic fortunes are being built on foundations of lies and fake news; surely there's gold, or at least some silver, in purveying truth?
Where are OUR Murdochs?
Why are we ceding our eyeballs to these merchants of deception and manipulation?
He's a billionaire - and small minded, with tunnel vision, who clearly doesn't care about the people who work hard for him. It's too bad he took this route but it only serves to show what kind of person he is.
His "us against them" credo is ridiculous, and further reinforces that we need MORE not fewer unions, with increased membership.
I'm sorry for those who lost their jobs. They all deserve better. Perhaps it will be true -- that although this door closed, a window will open for them.
5
If Mr. Rickets is against unions due to the "us against them" atmosphere, maybe he should share profits more equitably. Then they'd all be in for the same highs and lows.
It also appears that these two news platforms were incompatible but merged anyway. So, maybe it was another failure by the masters of the universe who continue to reap rewards for miserable failures.
14
There were no profits yet, he was losing money every month...
2
This is too bad and I sincerely hope a unionized local news replacement comes along soon. DNA Chicago and Chicagoist reported some great stories on a hyper local level. Its a loss and sad to know that the reason is simply one more anti-union reflex by a billionaire.
7
This is such terrible news -- if not entirely unexpected. Gothamist and DNAinfo were stellar sites. (Full disclosure: I occasionally freelanced for the former.) But if the interwebs have taught us anything, it's that stellar work doesn't guarantee success, or profits. I hope the wonderful journalists and others who worked at both sites land on their feet.
But I also want to address Mr. Ricketts' claim that "unions promote a corrosive us-against-them dynamic that destroys the esprit de corps businesses need to succeed." I get it. As Mr. Ricketts put it in another revealing quote: “As long as it’s my money that’s paying for everything, I intend to be the one making the decisions about the direction of the business.”
Fair enough. But the fact is, unions ARE us-against-them enterprises -- as they should be! No for-profit company in the history of the world has provided its employees with secure, well-paying jobs and solid benefits simply because it's the right thing to do. Workers -- unions -- fought for those things, and if any workers anywhere are still enjoying them, it's because people several generations back fought (and in many cases lost their lives fighting) for dignity and safety and fair wages in the workplace. Yes, some unions are corrupt and run by sleazy con men. But to lay blanket blame on unions for business failures is absurd.
Anyway -- RIP, Gothamist and DNAinfo. You'll be missed.
128
i recall that when Sam Walton was alive, Walmart was such a place that paid their workers well and gave generous benefits .
3
I worked for such an idealistic place, a software company, in the mid-80's. Heady, happy days. Then it went public, and then the Attila-the-Hun software company bought it and pillaged it. Nothing good can last?
1
I beg to differ. My organization cares about its employees and provides excellent working conditions without the need of Unions.
This is a great loss for NYC. Gothamist in particular was my first read in the morning and last at night.
And what will happen to the archives of both sites? That is a detailed, hyper-local and irreplaceable log of daily New York City news. What, Ricketts can't afford the couple thousand dollars a year in hosting fees to keep them live?
26
This is really sad. I relied on Gothamist to get the scoops that fall through the cracks at national publications. The issues that might not be matters of national security but impact the daily lives of New Yorkers. I also appreciated their hard nosed style and willingness to take on the power structure of this city. I hope some of their writers and spirit will pass onto other local papers (or even the New York section of this one).
7
And yet just today the GOP pushes a major corporate tax reduction--to the tune of 1 trillion dollars--as being beneficial to "hard-working middle-class American workers".
“With this plan," says Speaker Paul Ryan, "we are making pro-growth reforms, so that yes, America can compete with the rest of the world."
I wonder how much Rickett's is going to save under the GOP/Trump plan? The slow-motion coup d'etat by the 1% marches forward.
55
Mr. Ricketts words ring empty. The rich are scared of unions.
47
Mr. Ricketts just demonstrated conclusively that the rich have nothing to fear from unions.
I'm no fan of Gothamist (basically recaps of other articles, with entertaining but generally unhelpful comment boards), but DNAInfo did invaluable reporting work in the boroughs. Their reporters were known by their communities and could be counted on to appear at neighborhood community board meetings, water main breaks, fires, crime scenes, ribbon cuttings, etc. Quite often I would see their stories picked up by the larger media, so I know their newsrooms will miss their work also.
What are we to replace this kind of local reporting with? Patch is a rather weak substitute, TV only cares about "7 On Your Side" type exposes, and good luck getting the attention of the major dailies now. Are we confined to getting our local news only from Facebook?
6
A petulant billionaire just destroyed an entire business because its employees dared to advocate for themselves. He didn't look for a buyer, or give any warning. He isn't even maintaining the archives, to allow the reporters to access clips and find new jobs. This is absolutely unconscionable.
255
the article clearly states that warning was given. This is a free market economy in essence. When its your money, you might feel different. If you hired a housekeeper/nanny, and then they tell you that they will not do nanny duties, so you hire a nanny , and they both tell you they will not cook , so you hire a cook and then all 3 tell you they will not answer the phone or accept packages delivered , all the while you are paying them well and all , then they demand a higher wage and will tell you when they will and will not come in to work, get the picture.
4
An entitled group of replaceable bloggers just destroyed an entire business because its owner dared to care about making a profit. They didn't help him look for substitute employees, or offer to make any concessions in light of the lack of profits. This is absolutely typical.
Don't you love America? You can do whatever you want with your money.
Good. It is his money, and it is his business, and the idea that he needs to keep pouring cash into a money-losing business whose employees decide to make things worse by unionizing is insane.
3
I won't miss Gothamist - it all too often read like a poor and even more PC imitation of Gawker, which at times seemed like a poor imitation of Spy Magazine from long ago. But DNAinfo was an important source of local news to those of us interested in local news. It will be missed.
5
Well, somebody certainly promoted a "corrosive us-against-them dynamic" that destroyed the business. But I don't think I'd blame the people who were the heart and soul of the whole enterprise, and who did such a wonderful job of it.
15
Well, that'll learn ya not to let a billionaire ever actually go into business.
There are other revenue streams available to online journals beyond advertising, and other successful, and smaller, publications use them. Ricketts is obviously too inept to investigate them, and too greedy to let workers organize.
This is a commentary on our times all around.
5
As a loyal reader of Gothamist and DNAinfo over the years I'm disappointed in today's sudden closure. Did Mr. Ricketts make reasonable efforts to lead his businesses to profitability? Or is this a cynical and drastic overreaction?
Seems like so many billionaires in the news recently who just can't handle adversity or criticism...
10
Ricketts has a bottomless wallet, so profitability for now isn't a concern. That's just a misdirection because he hates unions so much he's willing to shut down the business and lose his entire investment.
35
He has a bottomless wallet for a reason... He doesn't have to waist his time on a money loser when he can put his money to work in more profitable ways...
2
Irresponsible does not even begin to describe this closure. After 14 years of being a central source of local NYC news, Gothamist shuts down with no warning and offering no archives. Ricketts clearly doesn't need the money and we're all expendable.. staff and readers alike. A slap in the face of New York with only one billionaire winner - feels eerily familiar.
99
This is indefensible. In one movement Joe Ricketts has wiped out the years of local reporting he claims to champion, all in a punitive move designed to strike against his own employees who wanted to have a say in how they were compensated for their work. They don't even have their published pieces anymore. If you were an architect, how would you ever get hired again if your plans were burned and your buildings were razed to the ground?
On his personal website Joe Ricketts has a long list of his philanthropic ventures, and to a point he does seem to care about using his immense wealth to better the world around him. Why doesn't he care about his workers, who are now suddenly unemployed with no evidence of the work they generated over the last decade of their lives? What does he care about more, the struggles of local news in the current media marketplace, or his wealth?
5
I am so upset to learn that DNAInfo is no more. I relied on it heavily for local news. I read it daily and it truly helped me to be informed about my neighborhood and city. I loved the depth and (usually) the quality of the reporting. Often I'd learn of crime issues or events occurring on my block or nearby from DNA and nowhere else. This is a true loss for Chicago and, imagine, the other cities where they operated.
4
usually that is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act. At least,it used to be. Does the NLRB have integrity during the Trump sham?
6
Violations of the NLRA are seldom punished, and the workers' remedy, even for this kind of brazen violation, is merely their lost wages, payable several years from now, after the billionaire exhausts his appeals, minus whatever they've managed to earn in the mean time. Under our labor law system, the bosses can't lose. Workers have only those rights that they take and hold through direct economic action. The law is not their friend.
109
@J.D.: Absolutely. That exactly illustrates my point above of it being a war of attrition. Funny how supposedly “cash-strapped” entities have bottomless wallets when it comes to arbitration and NLRB appeals. The aim is to break unions financially and wear down workers until they cave. Ricketts just skipped a few steps here.
Employees, especially in media it seems, have to constantly fight to hang on to every scrap management deigns to give them.
6
Ever wonder why this is? It's because the workers have a lot more choices in the situations. For one, they can simply start looking for another job, multiple ones at any given time. If you own the business and it's going down what are you going to do?
As a frequent reader of Gothamist, my knee-jerk reaction is to demonize the owner, and while some of that--perhaps all of that(!)--may be warranted, perhaps I should take this moment to introspect: Maybe I'm part of the problem?
I've never paid for journalism... and that includes NYT (Sorry!). At some level, I clearly believe that journalism is skilled and important work that needs to be supported, but for whatever reason, I have thus far been reluctant to foot the bill.
Having grown up in the "Napster" age of the internet, there's a sort of ingrained sense that everything is free online, but that's clearly a lie we've all internalized to some extent. It took me a long time to reprogram myself into supporting musical artists with my wallet, and now I take pride in the fact that I'm helping to sustain quality art. A part of me thinks a sea-change is necessary to support quality journalism in the same way.
That said, while music and art can be considered a luxury (debatable), journalism is certainly not! Why should news and analysis be beyond the reach of those in lower socioeconomic strata?! Journalism is clearly a necessary--more necessary than ever given our country's downward spiral--public good and should be funded as such.
I'm not sure what that looks like, and I'm sure many better minds have made such proposals, but I don't think it's the digital frontier that's killing journalism, but rather, private funding.
3
I’m with you (although I do pay for the NYT because I like getting the Sunday paper) - but we who have grown up in the Napster age (yay Oregon Trail generation!) have also been accustomed to giving our info and data away for free, and have consented to being bombarded with advertising and #sponcon in exchange for use of these services.
1
It’s hardly Ricketts fault. If advertisers don’t buy the ad space then it can’t exist. It’s not greed, it’s business and business requires profit. The problem is consumers are accustomed to cheap and/or free content. The question is how to put the genie back in the bottle....if it’s possible at all.
This is not at all what happened here. Gothamist was an independent voice that was highly critical of the Trump regime and the right wing fringe. Joe Ricketts bought the publication earlier this year knowing this all too well. It is impossible that the company tanked so quickly - did he not see the financials? His plan all along has been revealed - buy it, then complain about how he wasn't making money, then shut it down. One less independent source of journalism. That is the story, how an evil billionaire wormed his way into NYC's media landscape and took down an administration. Period.
54
So he was an evil genius? Evil, but a genius! LOL
This.
So he bought it for, what I assume to be, a lofty price and shuts it down to lose money? I'm not buying it...
3
"But reporters at many digital news sites make only a fraction of what staffers made in the heyday of print newspapers." That statement is apropos of nothing. Buggy whip makers had to seek a new profession. If these workers can't get a job with one of the big sites, that's probably their best option as well.
2
Who needs to obey the law or to listen to workers when you have all the money in the world. We all have the right to have our voices heard. Those with money have a loud voice in what they care about, workers join together to amplify their voices in those issues important to them. Its their right under the law. The NLRB needs to step up and protect the law.
2
They have a right to unionize, and he has a right not to keep a money losing business open.
Shame on Ricketts! Sadly, this country belongs to big Capital, and workers have no effective recourse.
5
As a lawyer who has represented corporations fighting against NLRB union votes, please allow me to get on my soap box here. There are industries where union labor will eliminate corporate profitability. In said industries, it is only logical for the business to close its doors in the event of a "yes" union vote. The problem here is that, per employment laws, the business cannot tell its employees that if they vote yes, then they will lose their jobs. All the business can do is explain, vaguely, the pros and cons of union membership. Meanwhile, the union representatives often know full well that the "Yes" vote will result in the business going out of business, but in my experience the union is often more interested in accumulating membership dues than looking out for the practical well-being of said employees. I realize this is a bit "anti-union" for the NYT, but this is a reality I see annually a progressive corporate lawyer. And no, the answer is not to expect businesses to operate at losses or radically change their business models in an unlikely attempt to maintain equitable margins
11
well put
2
This is bad news for journalism of course, and more evidence -- if we didn't already need it -- how the 1% usually gets its way. No surprise I suppose -- a billionaire, who is critical of unions, pulls the plug on after his staff attempts to unionize. I'm a tenured journalism professor, and I don't know what to tell young journalists except that you have to do it your own way. Be entrepreneurial, travel, realize you will do good work for clips, not money, especially when you are starting out. Hopefully, a few young people will continue the good fight to practice relevant journalism in the face of stories like this one.
5
Why not tell them to find another line of work, unless they're independently wealthy?
3
Did Ricketts buy Gothamist just to destroy it? Jen Chung and Jake Dobkin did Gothamist and its readers a disservice by selling it to a Trumpista who seems to have been motivated to silence local independent media. Ricketts seems personally piqued that the reporting in the media outlets he owned sometimes contradicted the alternative facts of the right wing spin machine. I wonder what labor or contract laws this might violate.
Maybe it's just a coincidence that so many of these independent media operations have been bought then shuttered in the past year or two, but it sure feels like independent media are being systematically snuffed out by billionaires buying then destroying them.
Nonproft local news organizations haven't really caught on, but we need to rethink the structure of how news is made, to remove the influence of these deranged billionaires greedily manipulating the electorate by destroying the independent fourth estate.
41
I’m upset about this and maybe more upset with Dobkin and Chung selling their site and allowing this to happen. I feel like they, and maybe this is unwarranted, took the money and ran. Did they have blinders on? This seemed like an outcome that could’ve been seen and I see it as a real black eye on all the work they did getting to where they did with Gothamist.
4
The Washington Post seems to be doing OK after being bought by Bezos.
As a news outlet, Gothamist at least presented the sheen of being a "shoulder-to-shoulder," "family"-run, hyper-local operation. That and the classic, mostly "progressive" NYer tenor of its coverage and commentariat certainly made Dobkin and Chung's selling to a known Republican like Ricketts rather surprising.
At the same time, we must bear in mind that NYC is also the capital of capitalism. Sorry to say, then, that their actions are not completely incongruous with what surrounds us--and what at bottom produced Donald Trump--however disappointing we among the duped readership may find it.
2
Putting aside the reasons for Rattner's decision, this is a really sad day for those who like to read local news. DNAinfo, in particular, had a long and mostly impressive record of covering Community Board meetings, transportation issues, zoning regulations, and crimes; the stories that don't make it into the NY Times or other print or online publications.
Without them, it's just going to be harder and harder to keep any sort of oversight on our representatives and our landlords, among many others in this city.
Whatever one thinks of Ricketts' politics or labor practices, his goal with DNAinfo was a noble and necessary one. I, for one, will miss it.
5
Their place of employment is struggling to survive... and they vote to unionize? Foolish seems too mild a word.
As a business owner, I work with -- but mostly work around -- unions all of the time. Nothing raises prices and lowers productivity quite like a union.
5
If you can’t afford to let your employees unionize, you probably shouldn’t be a business owner.
7
Huh? Using your logic, if you can’t afford to work without being in a union, then you shouldn’t work.
2
Unions don't work, they impede work. That's the problem.
2
I personally know some of the people who are now unemployed. Mr. Ricketts is so rich he is not going to suffer because he closed these NYC media outlets and the citizens of New York who enjoyed and often followed local breaking news on them should be very angry. I hope that any and all Unions who are working for him or his family now will go on strike.
1
This is awful. Both websites were authentic, local voices. They will be deeply missed, and leave a huge void.
Shame on Joe Ricketts for punishing the staffs of both papers for unionizing.
3
It's his right. His business, his decision. Don't know the full story. Did Mr. Rickets pay a fair wage? Provide vacation and personal leave? Or was the business model with employees to treat them like independent contractors? My guess the employees felt and knew they weren't getting a fair deal for work done. Too bad.
3
The generous paid administrative leave and severance they are all receiving says that they were not independent contractors.
2
Yet again, unions shoot themselves in the foot. Their rigid rules and intransigence have put many a business under water. The Hostess case was particularly memorable; rather than flexible work rules the union voted the company into bankruptcy. Of course, that was all just to line pockets of the union leaders and protect union members in other companies from flexible work rules? I felt so bad for those Hostess workers, and kinda stunned they would vote no to jobs and be fired. Wacky. The time for unions is gone, and with globalization, each small business if fighting for survival against competitors with cheaper workers overseas. We workers are competing for jobs too with folks overseas, and we must be more flexible, trainable and even flexible on wages.
4
Ricketts closed both sites down primarily because of attempts to unionize. The more recent revamps of these sites added more ads which would bring more revenue. The fact that he shut these sites down just days after the reporters voted to unionize is not a coincidence. While I will miss the Gothamist site the most, I feel bad for those who find themselves suddenly out of work.
238
Ya reap what ya sow
Don't feel too bad, they got 4 months compensation. That more than most will ever get.
Greedy management also causes an "us against them" climate. I commend those who joined the union. Reporters need to eat, too, and that is why they join unions.
I am sure similar other sites will come along to replace DNAinfo and Gothamist. Mr. Ricketts, probably doesn't need the money and some new entrepreneur does.
Have fun with your money, Mr. Ricketts.
208
Greedy management? The management wasn’t making money. Businesses exist to make money. Businesses aren’t charity cases. If the reporters wanted to do what they love, they should not have joined a union when they knew their employer never made money. There’s no right to be a reporter
6
DNA Info was losing money every month. The reporters were lucky that business lasted as long as it did.
7
As mentioned in the article, this was not about greed from Mr. Rickets. The websites never had a profitable month. Expecting someone to continue operating an unprofitable business despite actions sure to make it even less profitable, is completely insane.
Mr. Rickets isn't running a charity. He's running a business. To label him as greedy when he kept afloat a floundering business for years, and then to consider the writers as heroes when they took action to demand more money from management that had none to give, is an amazing level of hypocrisy. The workers were the only ones who profited off DNAinfo, yet Ricketts is considered the villain.
3
Any business model that relies on getting well educated people to sustain a demanding competitive career based on low wages, piecework and high turnover is not going to be viable, with or without unionization.
375
And yet colleges still rake in the money off the backs of adjuncts, mostly because the middle class is terrified that there will be no jobs for their kids without a college degree. These parents are half right - there will be no jobs for their kids, with or without a degree, and with or without $60K in debt, as automation replaces most of what people of average intelligence can do for a living. Unions? Well, fine, but for what jobs? I don't see too many of them in the future.
Really? Adjuncts in higher education are all too viable.
Really? Adjuncts in higher education are all too viable.