Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 335 posts

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#61

Post by freedomben »

goodluckchuck wrote: post #39
mikeryan wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a large and varied company like the New York Times you’re going to have multiple Unions representing different workers. The printers won’t usually be in the same union as the tech workers. You’ll always have a mix of union and non-union work since managers can’t be in the union and certain types of work may not be covered by one of the current unions.

Thanks for the response. I’m surprised that managers generally aren’t allowed in unions. But then I guess that’s probably a case by case thing with different criteria for different unions. Still, there are 20+ million “managers” according to the AFLCIO, excluding professionals who manage staff, e.g. some engineers, doctors, etc. Probably 10–20% of all workers. https://www.dpeaflcio.org/factsheets/the-professional-and…

At least the unions I've been around, managers were the ones the unions were there to keep in check. It would have been very undermining to the union if the managers were part of it.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#62

Post by tootie »

CSMastermind wrote: post #7

I'm surprised they weren't already in one. I worked at a competitor (the Wall St. Journal) years ago and all software engineers there had to be part of the union. Unions in the news industry are extremely common and powerful. My subjective experience with it was that union membership was mostly inconsequential for developers. The market for programmers is so strong that people would just leave if they weren't treated…

Honest question: why? Engineers are already compensated way, way above average and have loads of mobility opportunities. I actually work in a news org where most of the non-tech people are in one union or another but my team isn't. We have actually had a few union staff who wanted to do coding work and the union essentially blocked them.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#63

Post by zorpner »

kortilla wrote: post #29
CountSessine wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they can - unless you live in a jurisdiction with a so-called “right to work” statute. If you weren’t forced to join then, in theory, management could subvert and then break the union by hiring lots of new employees who are compensated to “opt-out”.

That’s absolutely insane that a union can prevent people from working for a company without paying for their “protection”.

The company can hire you. Your unionized coworkers can decline to work with you, or for the company, if they do so. Would you deny them that right?

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#64

Post by morgante »

djrobstep wrote: post #59
morgante wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. That's why I will vigorously oppose any unionization drives. It's incredible that people would acquiesce to being forced to accept whatever contract some union boss negotiates.

Why is it bad to be forced to generate revenue for the union as a condition of employment, but ok to be forced to generate revenue for the company as a condition of employment?

The business has customers and pays me a salary. The union is simply a parasite, extracting value from the organization.

Objectively, if you voluntarily join a union shop, there's nothing wrong with that. I would never do it, but it's at least a free market transaction.

But it's unconscionable that a union might show up at my work and demand I start paying them for the "benefit" of negotiating on my behalf. I would instantly quit. Thankfully the Alphabet union is a tiny farce.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#65

Post by morgante »

zorpner wrote: post #63
kortilla wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s absolutely insane that a union can prevent people from working for a company without paying for their “protection”.

The company can hire you. Your unionized coworkers can decline to work with you, or for the company, if they do so. Would you deny them that right?

No. Some union agreements specifically forbid the company from hiring non-union employees. That's what makes it a closed shop.

"Right to work" states have it right here. A union should never forbid you from voluntarily transacting directly with an employer. If they do, they're just a protection racket.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#66

Post by golemiprague »

CSMastermind wrote: post #7

I'm surprised they weren't already in one. I worked at a competitor (the Wall St. Journal) years ago and all software engineers there had to be part of the union. Unions in the news industry are extremely common and powerful. My subjective experience with it was that union membership was mostly inconsequential for developers. The market for programmers is so strong that people would just leave if they weren't treated…

No post body was provided.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#67

Post by zorpner »

morgante wrote: post #65
zorpner wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The company can hire you. Your unionized coworkers can decline to work with you, or for the company, if they do so. Would you deny them that right?

No. Some union agreements specifically forbid the company from hiring non-union employees. That's what makes it a closed shop. "Right to work" states have it right here. A union should never forbid you from voluntarily transacting directly with an employer. If they do, they're just a protection racket.

Ok, so the union has negotiated a contract with the company, and as a part of this negotiation the company has agreed to specific terms of employment. Should they be prohibited from engaging in those negotiations, or agreeing to those terms?

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#68

Post by pavel_lishin »

Kalium wrote: post #28
the_duke wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly the time to unionize! The employer has limited leverage to bust any union efforts. When the employment market is weak and you are scrounging for a job it's a lot easier to threaten/scare everyone into submission.

This also describes an environment where the union doesn't seem to be offering any significant benefits to developers. If unionizing doesn't improve your working conditions, what's the point of the union?

If you're driving safely at sixty miles an hour, what's the point of a seatbelt?

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#69

Post by judge2020 »

Kalium wrote: post #44
axutio wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the idea is that you form the union when you have leverage and don't need it so that if you ever lose leverage as an individual in the future (e.g. if the developer labor market becomes oversaturated or demand for developers tanks), you will still have some leverage as a member of the collective. Seems kind of like insurance - you pay for it when you don't need it so that you have it when you do.

Oh, I get the idea . We're just talking about a situation described by the commenter above where the union is already formed . It is apparently unable to provide any substantial benefit except the hope that it might be useful at a future date. This leads me to wonder if it's really doing anything of value for the workers it's supposed to be defending, supporting, and empowering. Like the insurance policy that you sus…

This is generally why Insurance is more regulated in certain industries, eg. Motor vehicle insurance can’t drop you because the get a claim about how you totaled someone else’s Lamborghini. Are there similar protections that regulate unions themselves?

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#70

Post by aaomidi »

wyager wrote: post #57
aaomidi wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure going from "we can terminate your employment without cause" to "okay these are the reasons we will terminate your employment" is a HUGE stress relief for people. Unions, even when they're not doing much, bring in stability.

Turning the decision to fire someone into a hyper-formalized procedure mostly seems to result in environments where terrible people never get fired, like the DMV.

1. The DMV is actually an amazing quality of service. Ive lived in a couple of states. California was just on another whole level of bad. Anyway, DMV is actually really efficiently done.

2. What part of firing people do you think is going to fix the bureaucracy?

Post reply on HN