451–460 of 1001 posts
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?
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?
> 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. It's smart. The one week where americans manage pull their head out of their ass is a good time to move.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I see people critique those numbers as being “too high”, or demands for additional compensation “unreasonable”, 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. Truth be told, for the present cost of living in the Northeast in general, you’re looking at a family income of $300k to be “comfor…
>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/
The problem with your retort is it ignores the very context I outlined above. The present rate of inflation appears more manageable, but because most of it is driven by absurd inflation in shelter and transport costs (homes and cars), those two areas are starkly higher than inflation overall - as much as 50% or more, in some metros.
So while your napkin math makes for a good soundbite, the reality is that it just hides the complex truth of inflation. So yes, while $45k might be inflation-equivalent to $73k today, that purchasing power is significantly different. $43k in the 2000s could buy you a starter home in most states, albeit not in most metros; nowadays, $73k can’t even cover basic necessities in many states and all metros, not without significant sacrifices.
So my point still stands.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hiring consistently high performing employees is not a solved problem. Making it hard to fire low performers results in low performing teams, and there are no reliable solutions to this.
One wonders if it is not solved simply because of at will employlemt? Almost like firms are lazy, and unwilling to go beyond the bare minumum required by law.
I totally support their demand for remote work. NY Times should hire more remote! They could save a lot by hiring offshore without hassle of providing benefits or fighting unions.
Have you ever done knowledge work with offshore contributors? It’s challenging to say the least. Even when working between first-world countries speaking English, there’s a host of serious problems. Cultural differences; different expectations; time zone differences.
I'm fully aware of how jaring it is for the median HN reader to hear this, but maintenance of a news website isn't the kind of skilled labour that commands a 250k a year paycheck anymore.
> 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. That’s leverage. Striking during a time when the business doesn’t care is a dumb move.
I'll vote tomorrow. That's what I can do. All the rest of it is out of my hands and I'm not going to spend any of my time or mental energy engaging in the manufactured drama sure to come.
Like my barber said at my last haircut: the only sure thing about this election is that an idiot will be our next president.
As much as I am a bolshy union member and supporter, this doesn't seem too bad on the surface, the article doesn't make clear what the issues with it are? Times management said in an email to workers on Sunday that it had offered a 2.5 percent annual wage increase, a minimum 5 percent pay increase for promotions and a $1,000 ratification bonus. It also said that the company would maintain its current in-office work r…
> As much as I am a bolshy union member and supporter, this doesn't seem too bad on the surface, the article doesn't make clear what the issues with it are? The linked article is the New York Times writing about a strike _against_ the New York Times. Factor this into your assessments.
> 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?
"I should be able to work anywhere so long as it doesn't affect my performance..."
"Also don't judge me based on performance".
I think people need to be honest that WFH is as an argument is tightly integrated with merit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I want management to develop a system to determine who is low-performing, document when those workers don't meet the standards of performance, and reference those documents when they fire someone. It's just asking for due process.
That might by what YOU want or what you hallucinate the demand is but most reasonable interpretation of what we know is that they in fact want to prevent being fired for low performance. if you can be fired "only for misconduct" and low performance doesn't count as misconduct means that you cannot be fired for low performance. Granted, the actual demand might be more nuanced but going only by what was reported, they…