601–610 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's low for the market why choose to work at the NYT? Being a tech worker isn't like being a steelworker where you're kinda screwed if the plant shuts down. You're fully capable of moving job if you're dissatisfied. > Why they have 600 people is a question for management, no? It's a question for everyone at the organisation. If you're joining a firm with a massively bloated headcount you need to think if you're g…
They have a union. They don't have to "move on." They get to negotiate. That's why they have a union. If more companies had unions, then more companies would be forced to treat their employees like people. There's no data to support the idea that they have a massively bloated headcount. Just because you don't know the extent of what they do doesn't mean that they aren't doing it anyway.
Why do you think that people on 200k should have a union? How does it benefit anyone besides people looking for sinecure jobs?
Unions were needed to combat the powers of corporations where you are in some ways trapped by the relationship; like miners in appalachia who had to fight cartels of mining companies who suppressed their wages; or teachers who have one state employer.
If you're a competent tech worker, you're at the other end of the spectrum. So much so you're generally advised to switch jobs every few years in order to maximise your salary. There's nothing binding you to a particular employer, particularly in New York!
To be honest, if you're a good technologist, you should be looking at making 400k a year in at a trading firm. If you're working for the NYT you're doing it because you're weirdly attracted to the prestige of working there, or you're looking for a cushy job.
If the job is no longer as cushy as you want, have the dignity to leave and find other employment rather than trying to hold your employer hostage.
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…
Funny enough that it’s always “too high” for non executives but executive pay is never policed and any attempts to do so are met with fierce resistance. Which reminds me of another thing. A good friend of mine is currently getting their MBA from a fairly well regarded school. One thing they recently learned about is structuring compensation. The general adage is that whatever you pay an employee must be in reflection…
> A good friend of mine is currently getting their MBA from a fairly well regarded school...
Let that good friend of yours get actual job in some non-superlative companies like Wall street banks or FAANG. They will learn how their fantastical ratios of 5:1, 10:1, or 25:1 work in real life.
> ... you realize just how underpaid people are...
If that were true those 100s of thousands companies be making enormous unheard of profits. But that doesn't seem to be happening.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Descriptions from both sides are now included, what did you want here?
A neutral source from a third party news outlet. Do you think bias is a one-dimensional tug of war that cancels each other out when combined?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hello - former NYT employee here, who would have been part of the Guild union if I worked there still. The story is written by a reporter, Katie Robertson, who is also part of their own union (Times Guild). The Times has been pretty good at covering itself imho.
> who is also part of their own union (Times Guild). This doesn't remove the conflict of interest because it's not the same union. Those in the other unions may well be more sympathetic to the company than to the strikers, especially given the timing of the strike. It's likely interfering with their jobs right now in pursuit of a negotiation that they don't stand to gain from.
The comment I was replying to suggests the reporter is pro-NYT but you are suggesting that the reporter is pro-Union?
Maybe the reporter did a great job after all :)
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?
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.
Disclaimer: this is only my opinion on where to work. I'm fully aware there are many other good reasons why management needs to document low performance.
Salary is 140-155k USD.
For reference, here's levels.fyi's breakdown of the New York city area: https://www.levels.fyi/t/software-engineer/locations/new-yor...
Median total comp is 185k.
It seems like their total comp for NYT is slightly above the mark based on reported salaries: https://www.levels.fyi/companies/the-new-york-times-company/...
Why would anybody trust a NYT article about internal drama at the NYT? Does HN not understand bias? Compare the NYT article to other reporting, and you can see the difference. There's a few things the NYT forgot to mention, like the fact that these negotiations have been drawn out for 2 years now. Or this: "Throughout the bargaining process, Times management has engaged in numerous labor law violations, including imp…
"Times management has engaged in numerous labor law violations, including implementing return-to-office mandates without bargaining" this is insane. you can't require your workers to come into an office anymore? that's against the law?