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

New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 1001 posts

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#391

Post by Timon3 »

stickfigure wrote: post #342
legitster wrote: post #323

> The two sides negotiated until late Sunday. The sticking points in recent days were over whether they could get a “just cause” provision in their contract, which means workers can be terminated only for misconduct or another such reason; pay increases and pay equity; and return-to-office policies. This seems like a LOT of issues that still need to be hammered out. It would be one thing if they were disagreeing abou…

> workers can be terminated only for misconduct or another such reason This is such a weird request for technology workers. You want to work with low-performing coworkers?

Low performance is an example of just cause. The employer simply has to prove that this was the case, and that they gave the employee notice, a chance to improve, and a reasonable standard to reach.

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#392

Post by Kerrick »

macinjosh wrote: post #278
gruez wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I can’t help but think those people don’t understand that $100k is very much the new $45k of the 2000s, and has much less purchasing power than the latter did at the time. False. $45k in 2005 is only $73k today, when adjusted for inflation[1]. Even if you use the most generous interpretation of "2000s" to mean 2000, that's only $82k. [1] https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

No one cares that they can buy a 4k TV for $400. We want healthy food that we can regularly afford. That costs $400 a week for a family. These government indexes are incredibly warped.

If you assume a family of four with both children aged 9-11 and the parents a male and a female aged 19-50, the USDA says [0] it costs only $250.10 with a low-cost plan, $314.90 with a moderate-cost plan and $380 with a liberal plan. All three of these plans each support "a healthy diet through nutritious meals and snacks at home" [1] and would cover everything -- no restaurant budget required.

[0]: https://www.fns.usda.gov/cnpp/usda-food-plans-cost-food-mont...

[1]: https://www.fns.usda.gov/cnpp/low-moderate-liberal-food-plan...

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#393

Post by drawkward »

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #375
drawkward wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a hiring problem, not a firing problem.

I have lots of experience hiring tech people. Most of the time they turn out to be just as good as we thought they would be. But sometimes they don't. It would be terrible if it was impossible for us to let those people go.

It would be terrible for businesses to fire people arbitrarily. I'd rather give more rights to individuals than to businesses, because I am biased in an anti-business way: businesses arent bounded by human lifespans or biological constraints, get preferential treatment by the American legal system, have orders of magnitude more money and political power than individuals. It's almost like the USA fought a war and chartered individual rights in a document over this kind of shit, but never imagined businesses would be more encompassing than governments.

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#394

Post by renewiltord »

miltonlost wrote: post #352
gruez wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The default for the US is "at-will employment", which means that your employer can fire you at any time, no reason needed. That seems... fine? In most transaction neither party needs to give "just cause" to terminate a contract. Imagine having to give documentation to move out of your current apartment, for instance. Getting fired is disruptive to someone's finances that some notice/severance would be justified, but…

>>The default for the US is "at-will employment", which means that your employer can fire you at any time, no reason needed. >> That seems... fine? In most transaction neither party needs to give "just cause" to terminate a contract. You like having a sword over your neck at all times that an employer can just swing and take away your salary and your health insurance for any reason at all?

To be honest, yeah. I want to reduce the fixed costs of job transfer so that I can be efficiently allocated in the economy because that usually means I can make a lot of money. But I can see how someone who is at a lower skill level would want to raise the friction for hiring - less job mobility is good for them.

If someone wants to fire me, I hope they find it easy.

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#395

Post by code_for_monkey »

stickfigure wrote: post #342
legitster wrote: post #323

> The two sides negotiated until late Sunday. The sticking points in recent days were over whether they could get a “just cause” provision in their contract, which means workers can be terminated only for misconduct or another such reason; pay increases and pay equity; and return-to-office policies. This seems like a LOT of issues that still need to be hammered out. It would be one thing if they were disagreeing abou…

> workers can be terminated only for misconduct or another such reason This is such a weird request for technology workers. You want to work with low-performing coworkers?

why are tech workers, my industry, so committed to this ideology? Do you think the tech layoffs of the last few years was a justified culling of lazy idiots?

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#396

Post by code_for_monkey »

Eumenes wrote: post #385
stickfigure wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> workers can be terminated only for misconduct or another such reason This is such a weird request for technology workers. You want to work with low-performing coworkers?

[flagged]

this is just racism

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#397

Post by dartos »

jkestner wrote: post #310
reaperducer wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tech generates more money than the Times. It's the journalists that create the content for the tech end. Without them, there would be no Times tech employees.

They're all in it together. The journalists should strike for everything they want as well!

I meeean… if they have the negotiating power then they should.

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#398

Post by 1shooner »

datavirtue wrote: post #360
yoyohello13 wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull. That’s leverage. Striking during a time when the business doesn’t care is a dumb move.

[flagged]

I don't blindly give unions a pass, but you're asking if a business would use the value of their product at a particular point in time to set terms. Of course they do. If NYT didn't want to be caught in the lurch, that's what contracts are for, which they've had plenty of time to secure.

By the way, the price of Christmas trees is about to skyrocket, ridiculous!

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#399

Post by dehrmann »

miltonlost wrote: post #378
dehrmann wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In what world should a UNION of the workers care about the COMPANY? Some unions are more powerful than companies (think UAW). They're able to negotiate terms that are bad for the long-term health of the company, and not having backgrounds in running companies, union leaders might not be thinking about that.

All companies are more powerful than individual workers (think anywhere without a union). They're able to negotiate terms that are bad for the long-term health of the human workers, and not having backgrounds in caring about people and only money, CEOs might not be thinking about that. Unions look out for workers. That's their priority. They should not cater to the business.

My point is that unions should (but don't always) think about long-term business health because if the business loses market share or fails, it's bad for workers. If negotiating power is balanced, this might not matter, but if the union has more power, it can negotiate terms the company can't afford.

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#400

Post by maronato »

dehrmann wrote: post #383
legitster wrote: post #323

> The two sides negotiated until late Sunday. The sticking points in recent days were over whether they could get a “just cause” provision in their contract, which means workers can be terminated only for misconduct or another such reason; pay increases and pay equity; and return-to-office policies. This seems like a LOT of issues that still need to be hammered out. It would be one thing if they were disagreeing abou…

> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull Siblings are doubting this, but you can think of it like price gouging. It's the right behavior for extracting maximum value, but it burns a lot of trust, and that's important for a long-term business arrangement. It's playing the short game when they should be playing the long game.

Strikes happen when the trust is already burned. This has been going on for a long time, and we’re only seeing the public side of the conflict.

> The guild, which was formed in 2022, has yet to secure a contract after more than two years of bargaining.

https://www.axios.com/2024/09/10/nyt-tech-union-strike-vote

Post reply on HN