Re:NPM staff fired after trying to unionize – complaints
by qmanjamz on Monday April 22, 2019 @10:38PM
(#19725137)
It's pretty shoddy journalism for the title of the article to assert this as fact even though it's just an allegation that hasn't even been investigated yet.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:NPM staff fired after trying to unionize – complaints
by dang on Tuesday April 23, 2019 @02:17AM
(#19726052)
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or uncivil comments so we don't have to ban you again?
Re:NPM staff fired after trying to unionize – complaints
by cjbprime on Monday April 22, 2019 @10:53PM
(#19725204)
But they did investigate. They interviewed sources who confirmed that unionizing was planned before people were fired, which is the title. And they read the lawsuit and talked to the lawyers, who obviously said the same thing.
Re:NPM staff fired after trying to unionize – complaints
by qmanjamz on Monday April 22, 2019 @11:44PM
(#19725427)
The title allows the reader to infer a causation that hasn't been proven or investigated. Given that the people making the allegation are bitter ex-employees who have a financial incentive for it to be true, it's an allegation that should be met with a healthy dose of skepticism.
You probably don't see the bias in the article because you support unionization. If the article was instead titled "Sexual harassment complaints double after NPM staff unionize," you'd probably be complaining about bias the same as I am.
Re:NPM staff fired after trying to unionize – complaints
by bartread on Tuesday April 23, 2019 @05:59AM
(#19727008)
> You probably don't see the bias in the article because you support unionization.
Erm, yeah, I'm not sure where to begin with this other than a "people in glass houses" style comment.
I don't support unionization, for at least a couple of reasons[1], yet I still can't see where you're coming from with these assertions.
[1] I don't think either is relevant to this discussion.