[gotostatement]

okay this is amazing. but wtf is this sentence?

"No union victory is bigger than the first win in the United States at Amazon, which many union leaders regard as an existential threat to labor standards across the economy because it touches so many industries and frequently dominates them."

[hn_version_0023]

The NY Times prides itself on its 5th grade reading level.

[freyr]

The problem is that it’s worded in a confusing way, not that it’s “dumbed-down” for a general audience.

[coolso]

Trash talk the Times however you see fit and I'll probably back you up on it (they are laughably liberally/"progressive"ly biased, and continuing to run cover for the current administration as best they can despite it not really working as per the polls), their writing standards are, in my opinion, impeccable and a standout among news organizations, but I suppose not everyone can be perfect always.

[brimble]

David Foster Wallace loved to repeat the object (edit: or subject, depending on usage) after "which" practically every time he employed that word, which technique is usually overkill, but in this case writing it "[...] which company many union leaders regard [...]" would have helped a lot.

[silicon2401]

is there a name for this grammatical construction? it's one of my favorites in English but I have no idea what it's called. I also wonder if younger readers nowadays would even be familiar with it unless they enjoy reading older literature, as I almost never see it in modern writing.

[dionidium]

I'm not sure I understand. You seem to be suggesting:

"No union victory is bigger than the first win in the United States at Amazon, which Amazon many union leaders regard as an existential threat to labor standards across the economy because it touches so many industries and frequently dominates them."

But that's absolutely terrible, so you must be suggesting something else.

[Maximus9000]

That's a textbook run-on sentence.

[bawolff]

I don't think its a run-on at all, let alone a text book one.

[scoot]

What seems to be the problem?

[k1t]

I assume it's because you could read it as: the union leaders view this big union victory as an existential threat to labor standards.

(When instead they view Amazon as the existential threat)

[brimble]

There are multiple things in the first part of the sentence that "which" could denote. "Amazon" is what's intended. You could fix this by breaking up the sentence, or by specifying what you mean after "which" ("which company").

[pessimizer]

They're trying to sneak in an opinion that they're ascribing to "many union leaders" for the sake of their narrative, but they couldn't find anyone who actually said it like that. The NYT do it so often and obviously that it must be in the style guide.

Not said by the NYT: "[Amazon is] an existential threat to labor standards across the economy because it touches so many industries and frequently dominates them."

The previous was actually said by Mr. Many U. Leaders who I can't locate a phone number for.

[KoftaBob]

They Don't Think It Be Like It Is, But It Do

[stjohnswarts]

That's someone who doesn't want to use short sentences, and an editor who wants to watch the world burn.

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

Elements of Style says to place a comma before a conjunction introducing an independent clause.

[selfhifive]

It's a feel good sentence. Both pro-union and anti-union people can agree with it.

[htrp]

copy editor fell asleep

[yearly]

That sentence is fine