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

191–200 of 335 posts

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#191

Post by ejb999 »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #122
ralfd wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Houses are positional goods. If you earn five times as much, your colleagues will too, and there will be a bidding war until the price matches your earning power again. See also: The absurd real estate prices in the Bay area. Elizabeth Warren made that argument in her book "The Two-Income Trap". The economic gains from switching from the traditional bread-winner/house-wife household to double-income-households were e…

> Houses are positional goods. If you earn five times as much, your colleagues will too, and there will be a bidding war until the price matches your earning power again. This requires the assumption that additional houses can't be constructed. > See also: The absurd real estate prices in the Bay area. See also: the Bay area.

>>This requires the assumption that additional houses can't be constructed.

In a lot of places near expensive cities, that assumption is pretty valid.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#192

Post by gernb »

Retric wrote: post #182
eru wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, I don't actually want to work at a place that has better job security. Obviously, I wouldn't mind better job security for just myself; but if the downside is that my employer can't get rid of the dead wood, I'd rather work elsewhere.

Unions don’t prevent getting rid of dead wood, people get fired from union jobs regularly. The point is they need an actual pretext to fire someone, and layoffs are more difficult. It’s mostly protection vs the Amazon style fire people regularly so we can avoid paying unemployment insurance when we do seasonal layoffs etc.

The Police Union and the Teacher's Union have certainly been reported to be responsible for making it hard to fire people.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#193

Post by baud147258 »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #86
minhazm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all software engineers there had to be part of the union. Is that legal? Can unions or companies force you to join the union as a condition of employment?

Sure, just like companies can require you to work at certain times as a condition of employment, or wear a uniform as a condition of employment, or a hundred other things. Letting it go the other way just results in freeloader syndrome: unions fight for improved work policies and work culture for all, but you can get much of the benefits without paying in. So many people don’t, which ends up weakening the union in th…

Though if paying union dues is optional, the unions present in a company will have to show they can do something to actually improve the situation of the workers and not just collect dues by just existing

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#194

Post by baud147258 »

mikeryan wrote: post #27
goodluckchuck wrote: post #15

So will NYT be a union shop / the union will have a monopoly, have multiple unions, or have a mix of union and non-union work?

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.

> since managers can’t be in the union

can there be an union of managers then?

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#195

Post by kemotep »

approxim8ion wrote: post #103
morgante wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I always have the option to quit. Which I had in the first place. It's just as possible (in fact, probable) that the union negotiates a worse contract than what I could have gotten myself and I'd be forced to quit a job I liked. That's a strictly worse outcome. > At least in the union situation you’ve had an advocate in negotiating the contract. They're not an advocate for me. They're an advocate for the union .…

At the end of the day these arguments always come down to people thinking they're superior than the peasants who "need unions", possibly because they can't imagine organizations where people work for the welfare of people other than themselves.

What if labor rights and regulations provided nearly all the same benefits as unions but across the board to everyone, union member or not? Union membership could still be something you could choose to do, but the better working conditions be legislated so everyone in the country, no matter what job, had fair working conditions?

I’m someone who is not necessarily pro-union but understand that working conditions could be improved. A great example is 40 hour work weeks. I have never been in a union but because there are laws regulating a standard work week and mandating overtime if you go over, I have benefited from that. We could all collectively as a country lobby for this instead of each individual workplace fighting the same battle one thousand times over.

Not every anti-union argument is based on the one you are postulating.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#196

Post by heavyset_go »

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?

White collar union workers have higher compensation, better benefits and more time off[1]. They also report higher rates of life satisfaction[2].

Unions offer engineers more opportunities for democratic decision making at work, a place most workers spend 8 hours a day or more at. They also offer strong bargaining positions that can help developers own more of the value they create.

I'm sure there are things about the industry and employers that developers could improve. For example, there are quite a few engineers out there that have on call duty expected of them, sometimes unpaid or inadequately compensated. On call duty, often in places with higher rates of unionization or good labor laws, is compensated by 1.5x to 2x+ rate multipliers, includes additional bonuses, and on call duty isn't an expectation, it is voluntary

[1] https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2013/04/art2full.pdf

[2] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0160449X16643321

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#197

Post by native_samples »

mschuster91 wrote: post #175
eru wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say it like that's a good thing in itself?

It is. Labor providers are organized and connected in all sort of structures, ranging from golf club memberships and industry associations over questionably-legal wage fixing deals to ~~outright bribing~~ donating to politicians. In contrast, just about 10% of US workers are unionized [1]. This disparity is the reason behind a large part of wage stagnation and other areas where employment conditions are far behind of…

More accurately: employers are forbidden by many different mechanisms to join forces, are actively watched to prevent the formation of monopolies, and punished when they do, and are often restrained in many other ways by regulations.

Labor is not only allowed to collaborate in order to form monopolies and cartels, but is also legally protected when it does.

Please do explain how this disparity is in favor of employers.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#198

Post by native_samples »

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…

The whole point of unions is to create an us vs them setup in which "management" is the enemy and "workers" are the poor oppressed victims. You can't have a union with managers in it for that reason, such an organization would be the same thing as the company itself.

One reason unions make no sense in the tech world is that the line between "workers" and "managers" is often very blurry. What is a tech lead, for example? And of course the whole notion of class warfare being something to encourage is just an obsolete and very dangerous early 20th century Marxist idea. Most sensible people have disposed of it a long time ago, but no surprise the New York Times never let it go given the extremism and bias of their staff.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#199

Post by throwaway0a5e »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #108
Dracophoenix wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't pay a monthly subscription for a lawyer their not likely to use even though a lawsuit or criminal charge is one bad day away. You're view of supply and demand matches that of a paranoid actor rather than a rational one. If ever the market were to contract, there are alternative solutions like savings, downsizing, or looking for another job. It's not as though one company has a monopoly on all the job opp…

> People don't pay a monthly subscription for a lawyer That's a pretty poor analogy. Some people do keep lawyers on retainer. Also, if you don't have legal representation at the point in time you're sued/charged, you're not required to represent yourself, and can still hire a lawyer. Unions are probably closer to insurance. You can't buy insurance after you crash your car and expect them to pay out, neither can you j…

>Unions are probably closer to insurance.

I think this analogy is more apt than you realize. Internet commenters absolutely love to shove insurance down the throats of people who can afford to self-insure against or simply are not exposed to the particular outcome in question.

Re: New York Times tech workers vote to certify union

#200

Post by mschuster91 »

eru wrote: post #185
mschuster91 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is. Labor providers are organized and connected in all sort of structures, ranging from golf club memberships and industry associations over questionably-legal wage fixing deals to ~~outright bribing~~ donating to politicians. In contrast, just about 10% of US workers are unionized [1]. This disparity is the reason behind a large part of wage stagnation and other areas where employment conditions are far behind of…

Absolute wages are higher in the US than in Europe. Wages have not stagnated in the US, either. What measures of inflation do you use to come to that conclusion? The labour share of GDP has been roughly stable over the last few decades.

> Absolute wages are higher in the US than in Europe.

They are, but do not forget that in Europe, our take-home wages already have healthcare, social security and pension contributions taken care of, and our housing and general cost of living (e.g. groceries) are also vastly lower than in the US.

> Wages have not stagnated in the US, either.

They have, at least for the wide masses [1].

[1]: https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2019/

Post reply on HN