This is actually ironic given what David Sirota is saying today about the New York Times and its anti-union stance.

Over the last few years, the New York Times ownership – through its editorial board – has supported, applauded and demanded efforts to force unions to happily shred contracts they negotiated and accept pay/benefits cuts (see here, and here for examples). Though the Times is billed as "liberal" for its positions on social issues, this anti-union stance has been part of its broader economic conservatism for years. And now, we see how that conservatism – at least with respect to union issues – may come from a more personal, self-interested place, rather than a principled ideological motive.

After reading that blog post from Sirota. I then found an article by Steven Greenhouse in the NYT talking about the difference between European and American unions; mainly that the Europeans take to the street while the Americans do not.

“I actually believe that Americans believe in their political system more than workers do in other parts of the world,” Mr. Gerard said. He said large labor demonstrations are often warranted in Canada and European countries to pressure parliamentary leaders. Demonstrations are less needed in the United States, he said, because often all that is needed is some expert lobbying in Washington to line up the support of a half-dozen senators.

Professor Kennedy saw another reason that today’s young workers and young people were protesting less than in decades past. “This generation,” he said, has “ found more effective ways to change the world. It’s signed up for political campaigns, and it’s not waiting for things to get so desperate that they feel forced to take to the streets.”

Honestly, I think hitting the streets can still be warranted here in the United States. Maybe those New York Times workers might want to hit the streets. If you did something in DC I’d join you too!