The Nation: Unionization Kills Diversity

BY:

A top editor at one of the nation’s oldest liberal magazine says unionization has destroyed diversity in the newsroom.

Richard Kim, executive editor at the Nation, told the American Prospect that union restrictions on hiring and firing have made it impossible to bring more minorities on board. Hindering his ability to fire workers means there are few vacancies that can bring fresh viewpoints to the pro-Stalin magazine.

“The staff here is unionized, which means there is little job turnover,” Kim said. “We only get to make a hire every four or five years.”

The article examines liberal media’s struggles to turn its pro-diversity rhetoric into reality. The Nation ranked dead last among liberal publications for minority hires, according to the Prospect analysis.

Diversity isn’t the only area of hypocrisy in liberalism’s landscape. Kim is the latest liberal thought leader to snipe at unionization even as his publication carries its banner.

Media Matters for America, a liberal non-profit headed by Hillary Clinton attack dog David Brock, refused to respond to a Maryland union’s card check campaign. The website has often attacked secret ballot elections as unfair to Big Labor, but that has not stopped him from forcing Democratic powerhouse SEIU to go through the lengthy process.

The organization’s refusal to allow employees to organize has created a rift in the newsroom, according to the SEIU. A union release penned by the Media Matters Organizing Committee slammed Brock for hiring powerful labor attorneys to fight the SEIU, despite the union’s six figure donations to the organization.

“The actions of Media Matters executives have placed employees in the impossible position of continuing to produce content espousing pro-labor values for an employer who is challenging our right to unionize,” the statement said. “Not only is management subjecting Media Matters employees to arduous NLRB procedures, the actions of their attorneys indicate Media Matters executives object so tenaciously to our union that they appear willing to prevent employees from ever having the opportunity to vote on the matter.”