[cjbprime]

But they did investigate. They interviewed sources who confirmed that unionizing was planned before people were fired, which is the title. And they read the lawsuit and talked to the lawyers, who obviously said the same thing.

[qmanjamz]

The title allows the reader to infer a causation that hasn't been proven or investigated. Given that the people making the allegation are bitter ex-employees who have a financial incentive for it to be true, it's an allegation that should be met with a healthy dose of skepticism.

You probably don't see the bias in the article because you support unionization. If the article was instead titled "Sexual harassment complaints double after NPM staff unionize," you'd probably be complaining about bias the same as I am.

[bartread]

> You probably don't see the bias in the article because you support unionization.

Erm, yeah, I'm not sure where to begin with this other than a "people in glass houses" style comment.

I don't support unionization, for at least a couple of reasons[1], yet I still can't see where you're coming from with these assertions.

[1] I don't think either is relevant to this discussion.