[pmoriarty]

"A group of workers who weren't making money decided to get together to increase the ask of the owner of the business."

According to the article:

"DNAinfo was never profitable, but Mr. Ricketts was happy to invest in it for eight years, praising its work all along. Gothamist, on the other hand, was profitable, and a fairly recent addition to the company."

So at least Gothamist -- one of the companies that Ricketts shut down -- was actually profitable.

[manigandham]

So one of them becomes even more unprofitable and the other could potentially be unprofitable as well now. Either way, the total net increase in cost across both can easily make the entire venture no longer worth it.

[pmoriarty]

"So one of them becomes even more unprofitable"

How do you know this exactly? Maybe the union would make it even more profitable, because it forces the employer to finally treat the employees fairly, and that boosts morale, improving their performance, which increases the quality of their work, and thereby increases profits.

"the other could potentially be unprofitable"

Anything "could potentially become unprofitable". This is sheer speculation. What's not speculation is that it was profitable until it was shut down.

"Either way, the total net increase in cost across both can easily make the entire venture no longer worth it."

How do you know there's any increase in costs at all? And if there were increases in costs, how do you know they're not offset by improved performance, morale, or reputation?

[manigandham]

This entire opinion piece is speculation. Also it's all a single company with multiple properties so 1 single site being profitable doesn't seem like a strong argument.

[pmoriarty]

It is a strong argument against someone claiming that they weren't profitable. They clearly were.