Jalopnik, Other Gawker Media Writers To Unionize

by Cameron Aubernon

Published: June 4th, 2015

jalopnik other gawker media writers to unionize

It’s official: Writers for Gawker Media’s online publications, including our friends at Jalopnik, have voted to unionize.

Out of 118 eligible voters throughout the online-only media company, 107 cast their vote Wednesday to decide whether or not to be represented by the Writers Guild of America, East, Gawker reports. The results came to 75 percent (80 votes) in favor, 25 percent (27 votes) opposed.

As for how some of Jalopnik‘s staff voted, writer Raphael Orlove said he supported the move to unionize despite reservations regarding demands other Gawker Media writers have been making. Orlove goes on to state he would like the contract to focus on safeguarding against the company when it makes moves to the detriment of those who, while valuable as far as writing talent goes, are the least equipped to sort out the messes left behind.

Meanwhile, editor of subsidiary Black Flag Stef Schrader said she would likely vote against unionizing, based on Gawker’s unique situation as a company and WGA’s focus on more traditional forms of media. Schrader adds she and other remote employees haven’t received replies to emails about what WGA does from the union itself – asking for any organization working to represent the employees be “as responsive as work on the web demands,” especially with those not in New York – and is concerned for the company’s contractors who are prohibited from joining the WGA by the National Labor Relations Board, leaving them vulnerable come negotiation time.

And Gawker Media owner and founder Nick Denton’s take on the vote? In response to a comment from former vice president of editorial and sometimes Jalopnik contributor Joel Johnson, Denton praised the transparency leading up to the vote, an aspect his company says could be applied even further than the “transparent to a fault” stance already present. He also looks forward to working with whomever the writers choose to represent them during the company’s strategic discussions.

The next step? Jalopnik Editor-in-Chief Travis Okulski explains:

Gawker writers have approved the WGA to negotiate a contract on their behalf with Gawker management. If the contract is agreeable, which I think is what they expect, we’re unionized. If not, ties are dissolved or a new contract would be brought to the table.

Should all go as planned, Gawker Media would be the first online-only media company ever to have union representation. Time will tell if other companies follow in Gawker’s footsteps.

[Image credit: Jalopnik]

#GawkerMedia #Jalopnik #JoelJohnson #NickDenton #OnlineMediaCompanies #RaphaelOrlove #StefSchrader #TravisOkulski #Unionization #WritersGuildOfAmericaEast

Cameron Aubernon

Seattle-based writer, blogger, and photographer for many a publication. Born in Louisville. Raised in Kansas. Where I lay my head is home.

More by Cameron Aubernon

Comments

Join the conversation

14 of 82 comments

Big Al from Oz on Jun 05, 2015

Well, I do on the odd occasion contribute to Truck Yeah and Jalopnik. How successful will it be to unionise journo's? The future is becoming bleakers for many jobs out there. What is occurring is AI and computer generated journalism. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/533976/robot-journalist-finds-new-work-on-wall-street/ http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/29/7939067/ap-journalism-automation-robots-financial-reporting I don't think the human aspect of fiction will become robotic in the near future. Could you imagine a robot writing a Jack Baruth short story? I don't think Truck Yeah or Jalopnik are as free with opinions as TTAC. I did post one comment which questioned Andrew Collins review of the Ram Rebel. It was supposed to be an off road exercise. But, it was just a hooning exercise on his part. No real or relevant information was really provided to the reader on how well the Ram Rebel actually performed off road. The comment was never posted. What a pity. I do think some journalist should look at what a vehicle is and attempt to assess the vehicle for what it was designed to do and how it's marketed. In the end it's the journalists' decision for what direction they head in. One piece of advice for them, they will reap what they sow. What appears to be a net positive now, could in fact become a negative. Look at the UAW and the mess they have created for the US auto industry and the it's rank and file.

Like Reply
- See 11 previous
- Psarhjinian on Jun 05, 2015
  
  "Look at the UAW and the mess they have created for the US auto industry and the it’s rank and file." The UAW owns next to nothing of the mess of the US auto industry; that one lands almost exclusively on the shoulders of Detroit's "captains of industry".
  
  Like
- Ihatejalops on Jun 05, 2015
  
  @psarhjinian Seriously? Both are at fault.
  
  Like
- Danio3834 on Jun 05, 2015
  
  @Ihatejalops No, it's all management's fault because they gave into the unions demands while holding production hostage while at the same time non union transplants were cranking out production having to deal with none of that. /sarc
  
  Like
- Inside Looking Out on Jun 05, 2015
  
  Robots write scientific articles which pass peer review and get published in scientific journals. It was hoax but it demonstrated what a well written program can do. Artificial intelligence is looming on horizon, don't make bets against it. Jack B. might be just another robot. Did you ever meet him in flesh? All you see is photos of some human which might be just avatar.
  
  Like
- Psarhjinian on Jun 05, 2015
  
  @Inside Looking Out R. Jack Baruth?
  
  Like
- Psarhjinian on Jun 05, 2015
  
  @Ihatejalops No, they're really not. Labour didn't design, spec or source the poor-quality cars that had been foisted on the public since the mid-1970s. That's 100% management's fault, though cost-cutting and supplier-squeezing. Labour might, at best, have been able to move the assembly-quality needle in the 1960s. Plants haven't been engineered to allow labour to materially affect quality since then, unless you half-ass plant management. Again, that's a management issue. Finally, you might be able to argue that labour negotiated an unfavourable cost structure in the 1980s, except that a) the cars were crap before that, and b) management had labour ready to cave, only to fold at the last minute in order to make their quarterly bonus figures, and c) by the late 90s the domestics were cost-competitive and still making poor-quality cars because they put all their eggs in the truck basket. I know it feels good to kick labour around because it's a great right-wing meme, but it doesn't hold up under any reasonable scrutiny. Now, you can criticize labour for the two-tier wage system and for chasing their declining old-school membership's whims, but that doesn't really affect the product.
  
  Like
- Inside Looking Out on Jun 05, 2015
  
  @psarhjinian I have well founded suspicions that he is computer generated.
  
  Like
- FreedMike on Jun 05, 2015
  
  The unions have to shoulder a certain amount of blame, but they made the cars that management designed, engineered and marketed. And I'm pretty sure unions had zero to do with epic-fail corporate decisions like Chrysler selling itself to Daimler. The funny thing is that during the 1990s, no one ever talked about how unions were ruining Detroit. Why? Because Detroit was making money hand over fist due to the truck/SUV craze. At that point, they had a huge opportunity to take those profits, and plow them back into superior products. That way, by the early 2000s, they could have had fully competitive product to sell once the SUV craze began to die out. Look at what GM and Ford were selling in the early 2000s - almost all their key car product was based on designs brought out in the '80s. Some designs (the Cavalier and the Taurus, in particular) were pushing 20 years old by the mid-2000s. I have no doubt that if they'd done things differently, the late 2000s would have been far less devastating to the industry. The bailouts may not have even been necessary. Imagine that, right?
  
  Like
- CJinSD on Jun 05, 2015
  
  @psarhjinian Plants have been engineered to take labor out of the equation because the UAW was sabotaging production quality in the '50s, '60s, and '70s. People that received sabotaged cars became evangelists for the imports, but it isn't the UAW's fault that Detroit failed. Ever watch "How It's Made"? It's pretty telling when every sports car is made by orderly technicians in uniforms and smocks, except for the Corvette, which is made by slovenly zombies wearing whatever they wore to the crack house the night before. Belt buckles? Metal jewelry? Why not?
  
  Like
- CJinSD on Jun 05, 2015
  
  @FreedMike GM lost 25% of its market share during the '90s. Your assumptions are wrong, which doesn't help your conclusions. The UAW responded to demand for SUVs by striking plants with in-demand products and assuring that GM couldn't put down the legacy-cost shovel it was burying itself with.
  
  Like
- Jack Baruth on Jun 05, 2015
  
  @Inside Looking Out I follow the Fourth Law: a robot shall not fail to tap some fine broad's ass, or through inaction, allow a fine broad's ass to go untapped.
  
  Like
- Danio3834 on Jun 05, 2015
  
  @psarhjinian "the UAW was sabotaging production quality in the ’50s, ’60s, and ’70s. People that received sabotaged cars became evangelists for the imports, but it isn’t the UAW’s fault that Detroit failed." This was a big contributor. psarhj neglects this either selectively or out of ignorance. Union rules and intimidation allowed indifferent workers and sabotaging troublemakers to build poorly assembled products with little to no consequence. These vehicles either made it to the dealer and into the hands of the customer where they were fixed at the expense of company cost and reputation, or caught and sent to rework in the plant where even more union workers would fix them at additional company cost. I suppose you could still blame management for agreeing to the ridiculous rules as the workers held production hostage while transplant companies churned out product while being able to easily remove any troublemakers from the line.
  
  Like
415s30 on Jun 17, 2015

Good, I'm in the Local 510 union, we build everything for show, like the auto show, E3, etc... They will take everything from you if you don't stand together. Medical is the main thing these days, they won't rest until medical coverage is just not seen as a human right.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.