-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Owner of Barstool Sports Threatens to Fire Employees on Twitter for Wanting to Unionize
- Thread starter Angie
- Start date
This motherfucker is in his 40s!?
Is him acting like a fratbro some type of midlife crisis?
Well...
Barstool first launched as a print publication in 2003, which was distributed in the Boston metropolitan area offering gambling advertisements and fantasy sports projections, but later expanded to encompass other topics. It launched on the Internet in 2007.[4]
The most I get are links from Twitter and Facebook with a video or image. Some are fine, some aren't.
He's absolutely trolling, but he's also a piece of shit and an actual owner of Barstool.
It is resoundingly depressing how often people in this thread are posting "he's just trolling" as if that was some defense of this behavior that would make his behavior less unacceptable if that was true.
Last edited:
A nice reminder that Barstool Sports has always been lame, and their "army" of grown men clinging to their college days that are going to bat for this are even lamer. Trolling keeps them relevant, I guess.
Last edited:
I agree. If my boss 'trolled' about my employment status, I'd be looking for the door.
Sports journalism is largely trash, Barstool is just king of the trash. So few outlets are worth the time.
The ringer, a sports media company, unionized.
The lawyer reached out to Barstool employees publically on twitter saying they can reach out to him if they want to unionize.
Dave, the owner of barstool, jokingly (didn't really sell it I admit) said he'd fire anyone who hires the lawyer. Despite having no intention of doing so and there being no intentions from barstool employees to unionize.
I mean he's trolling now but that doesn't equate to him being some iron fisted union buster. I feel like once you understand the context of it all its not bad at all. Guarantee you that everyone at the office is having a grand ol time today at all of this.
The son of the president now going after a sitting congresswoman for responding to a troll post made by a dudebro blogger. 2019
You should really re-read what you wrote, because you're saying he's not union busting but then provided a textbook example of union busting.
Not to mention I perfectly understood the scenario before you posted any of that.
Posts like this are exactly what I was addressing.
Wanton Don/Donnie Does is the only good thing at barstool. He makes great content while living in China.
I mean I can't pretend to know what every single employee thinks.
But my main point was theres a difference in an owner joking about/trolling about unions when theres at least somewhat of a demand for it in that workplace
and an owner joking/trolling about unions when there is zero demand for one.
And I'm taking a bet that every employee in that office is in on this and enjoying the publicity. I'd also wager every employee in that office knew the intent when he tweeted it.
Lol, everyone is getting worked by Portnoy AGAIN, and now all the usual sites are going to put out anti barstool stories to cash in on this and they are going to get a huge boost in traffic. I think he knows what hes doing
It's union busting just the same, regardless of any speculation you want to conjure out of thin air about there being "zero demand for one".
Even assuming that your evidence-less claim was true, behavior like that is how you maintain a workforce that continues to have zero demand because they're afraid for their jobs.
There's a reason why the bar against union busting doesn't contain any exceptions for this.
I see your point but I think the better way to prevent unions is to have actually good pay, benefits, and keeping workers happy. And as far as I know, that seems to be the case at Barstool. Especially when you compare it to writers at other similar style companies ranging from The Ringer to ESPN.
I am very Pro Union but they are not needed anywhere. For instance, I think Walmart Employees need to unionize nationwide if they haven't already. Same with Amazon.
I work for Costco, was at the warehouse for a stint and now in the corp office. I would not want a Union here. Company is very good to its employees and they restructure stuff all the time based on employee feedback.
Even at a good place like that, a union is still better than nothing.
Dude you are doing this all wrong. You don't announce this on twitter. You call employees into the office and verbally tell them while having them sign NDA's at the same time to keep them in line.
All joking aside- I wouldn't want to work for this guy.
All joking aside- I wouldn't want to work for this guy.
I worked for Costco in college in NY and they had a union for floor employees. Only management didn't have a union.
Costco is good to workers precisely because of unions, lol.
Only wanting a union when and where things are bad is like only wanting a smoke alarm when and where things are on fire.
Last edited:
you're right, it DOESN'T matter. and nothing will come of it, because labor laws in this country are a joke.
Before getting into the rest of this, I have to promote this response, because it's so absolutely correct and succinct:
You thinking that preventing a union is somehow some sort of ideal of any sort tells me a whole lot about where you're coming from. It's like talking about how to prevent fire safety. I can see where someone might go "hmm, fire safety is expensive, how can I avoid it", but that's a concern rooted in personal greed and should not be treated by society as anywhere approaching a remotely legitimate topic of conversation.
Unions are the correct prescription everywhere. Period. Without them, workers are separated and without real bargaining power, because capital is consolidated in ways that labor is not (in the absence of a union) and will automatically have the upper hand in negotiations without a counterbalancing bit of organization on the part of labor.
Without unions, anything even approaching fair labor conditions is left entirely to whims of capital. You might sometimes get the rare case of a member of the capital class who has something approaching a conscience, but without a union to back labor, those conditions exist at the whim of the owner and are subject to change without any sort of serious recourse.
Unions aren't a magic bullet, but they're the necessary first step to even have a chance creating a level playing field for labor negotiations.
EDIT: I was a bit hasty on the necessity of unions. They are necessary so long as capital and labor are not one and the same. If we suddenly adopted co-ops and new models of organization that caused the labor/capital distinction to disappear, then, right, we don't need unions. But if you're not talking about putting an end to capitalism, then we're back to "unions are absolutely necessary".
You thinking that preventing a union is somehow some sort of ideal of any sort tells me a whole lot about where you're coming from. It's like talking about how to prevent fire safety. I can see where someone might go "hmm, fire safety is expensive, how can I avoid it", but that's a concern rooted in personal greed and should not be treated by society as anywhere approaching a remotely legitimate topic of conversation.
Unions are the correct prescription everywhere. Period. Without them, workers are separated and without real bargaining power, because capital is consolidated in ways that labor is not (in the absence of a union) and will automatically have the upper hand in negotiations without a counterbalancing bit of organization on the part of labor.
Without unions, anything even approaching fair labor conditions is left entirely to whims of capital. You might sometimes get the rare case of a member of the capital class who has something approaching a conscience, but without a union to back labor, those conditions exist at the whim of the owner and are subject to change without any sort of serious recourse.
Unions aren't a magic bullet, but they're the necessary first step to even have a chance creating a level playing field for labor negotiations.
EDIT: I was a bit hasty on the necessity of unions. They are necessary so long as capital and labor are not one and the same. If we suddenly adopted co-ops and new models of organization that caused the labor/capital distinction to disappear, then, right, we don't need unions. But if you're not talking about putting an end to capitalism, then we're back to "unions are absolutely necessary".
Last edited:
I wanna say that's warehouse dependent. My warehouse did not have one but I remember now reading about how they were at certain warehouses. As far as I know it just affected hours stuff.
Either way the system they have now is pretty good. Every year they change the employee handbook with new stuff based on suggestions. All I'm saying is I like the way it's done here, better than dealing with dues and what not. But I know Costco is the exception to the rule.
Seriously, employees gotta eat too. Seems like a terrible person to work for.
You posted this very early in the thread, and numerous people rushed to prove that you were correct.
Exactly. This is like when people used to get pissed off at Howard Stern for being a dumbass.
Barstool was never going to unionize and the only reason it came up was a guy tweeting about it. It's quite honestly a completely fabricated outrage issue and the only people that win are Barstool and everyone who doesn't play. The fact that AOC took the bait is sad to me. Like, do some research and save your fights for where they're worth having. Asking a bunch of 30 year old frat guys living in NYC-- who think Old School is the modern guide to success-- to suddenly stop being Republican tools because YOU TWEETED SO GOOD is asinine.
