"No employees are represented by a labor union or are subject to a collective bargaining agreement."

[Robb]

A pop quiz of sorts.

What kind of newspaper can make this claim? And would you support it if it did?

[Rex]

1. The Hearst family?

Keeding...dunno if they actually own any papers anymore...NO I would not support (ie buy) a paper that is anti-union.

[JohnnyRingo]

2. I recall seeing McCain shirts at his campaign website in 2008.

The site assured visitors that the t-shirts were not union made as a selling point.

Otherwise, I'm not sure what your headline implies. Perhaps it's bragging that no one at the newspaper is represented by a union, in which case I'd cancel my subscription to such a right wing biased rag and use the internet.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. An employee-owned newspaper.

Like, they would need a union to negotiate with themselves?

Of COURSE I would subscribe to such a paper, assuming its content was of reasonable interest to me.

[Robb]

4. Too clever by half!

But not what I'm talking about.

Great answer, however. One might consider employee ownership the ultimate collective bargain, eh?

[JDPriestly]

6. The Occupy newspapers.

[Robb]

7. Are their writers in the newspaper's employ?

[JDPriestly]

8. They are volunteers.

[Robb]

5. Kick. nt

[JDPriestly]

9. Wall Street Journal?