Kevin Cullen on the anti-union bent of the local media

[geefloyd46]

Mercifully, the campaign for mayor of Boston is over, and while I have no idea who will emerge the winner at the polls, I am quite certain who lost most in this race: union workers.
If there was a message, both explicit and subliminal, in all the debates and some of the news coverage, it’s that the city’s unions and unions in general are peopled by greedy, unreasonable, insatiable Bolsheviks who would gladly make Boston go the way of Detroit as long as they can get Bunker Hill Day off.
Funny, but I don’t know union workers who think like that, but then I’m in the tank.
My father was able to raise a family, and my mother was able to be a stay-at-home mom, because he belonged to a union. I belong to a union, and at one point, for reasons that remain a mystery, was elected president of the editorial workers at the Boston Herald back when Ronald Reagan became the darling of free marketeers everywhere by busting up the air traffic controllers union...

...The Globe and the Herald editorial pages can’t agree on what time it is, but they agree on the danger of electing a mayor who is a union activist.
It’s perfectly legitimate to ask if Marty Walsh would be beholden to unions, especially given the amount of money that unions have given his campaign, but both candidates should have been asked just as often if they’d be beholden to developers or law firms or any number of other monied interests.
The emphasis on the threat that unions pose to the future of the city left many union workers wishing they were only half as powerful as their critics believe them to be.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/11/05/laboring-under-cloud/UuIfXRYB8oHrIsP0jERTfP/story.html

[Doctor_J]

1. Check out Michael Parenti's views on press v. labor

One quote that sticks: "Surveys show that newspaper editors admit to favoring management of labor by 89% to 11%. I read this nation's newspapers and can't for the life of me figure out who the 11% are"

KR