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

New York Times tech workers union votes to authorize a strike

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 675 posts

Re: New York Times tech workers union votes to authorize a strike

#101

Post by hungie »

seneca wrote: post #71
hungie wrote: post #31

Good for them. More workers need to be understanding just how much they are being exploited by their leadership and demand a more equitable piece of the pie.

The word "exploit" has no meaning at all if you can stretch it so far as to cover NYC tech employees.

Absolute hogwash. The existence of people being exploited more does not mean that people being exploited less are not being exploited.

Like, yes, these workers are probably in better conditions than many global workers. But that doesn't mean the NYT isn't exploiting them.

Also, consider showing some solidarity -- these people are workers, and have more in common with other workers than they have different. Support their strike, and expect them to support yours. Or at the very least support them advocating for better working conditions and expect they will support you in improving your workplace.

Re: New York Times tech workers union votes to authorize a strike

#102

Post by yieldcrv »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #90
yieldcrv wrote: post #80

I think all we need to see is a compensation package equivalent to big tech or even greater, amplified by shares and the trendiest cliff for vesting, and tech unions will take off nationwide

I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not. There is a huge reason big tech can afford those compensation packages for employees, and the vast majority of companies can simply not afford that. As someone who's been both a union member and on the management side, it's frustrating when all sides don't realize that unions don't magically make money available to distribute to employees. There is certainly the argument that…

I wasn’t being sarcastic, NY Times is publicly traded too and is fully capable of the model where annual share grants are equal to the base salary, as opposed to a tiny sprinkle you’re supposed to be grateful for in leu of none at all.

Their tech team isn't that big, their $8bn marketcap could handle the share grants.

I had been critical of how wages haven't kept up with expenses for 30 years, while enamored by big tech compensation packages. In my analysis, big tech compensation packages are only reaching parity with the model of what wages would look like if they kept up with expenses, in which case I still shouldn't be impressed or worry about a comparison to what other fields are making. If value can be rationalized, and collective bargaining can extract it, then do that, I’m into it now since we’re close.

Re: New York Times tech workers union votes to authorize a strike

#103

Post by Manuel_D »

taeric wrote: post #92

What are their demands? And, cynically, is anyone even going to notice that they are striking? Seems unlikely, to be honest.

One of their key demands is to continue to allow remote work: https://www.axios.com/2023/10/30/nyt-tech-workers-walk-out

Re: New York Times tech workers union votes to authorize a strike

#104

Post by segasaturn »

mint2 wrote: post #73
gamepsys wrote: post #2

This could be a blueprint for how other tech departments unionize, but I suspect NYT is a unique case because of their politics. Can such a left wing cornerstone really afford to look anti-union inside their own house? This gives the workers more leverage than they would otherwise have in other companies. In any of the places I worked at in the past an anti-union consulting firm would have been called in to bust thin…

Regardless of what infographic makers declare, the NYT newsroom is not “left” leaning. Their coverage is much more complicated than left vs right, but one theme is they don’t question the loudest narratives, and they hold grudges when they perceive someone to not give them enough access. The right tends to be louder and more uniform and persistent in messaging, so that coloring often gets unconsciously added to artic…

It's not left vs. right, it's establishment vs. anti-establishment. New York Times was a major cheerleader for the illegal US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and uncritically repeated falsehoods from George W. Bush, who is not exactly a leftist hero.

Re: New York Times tech workers union votes to authorize a strike

#105

Post by paxys »

strict9 wrote: post #96
ThinkBeat wrote: post #11

This is a great time for it, with the election on and the millions running into the pocket of mass media. NYT should be highly motivated to negotiate a deal as soon as possible.

Absolutely. This is the worst job market for tech workers in probably 20 years. Many employed in tech are hoping to keep their job, let alone bargain for higher wages and remote work. Hard to imagine this effort having as much leverage if it were to happen after the election.

In fact I'd wager that one of the reasons for the urgency on the workers' part is to lock up contracts before the election in order to prevent mass layoffs right after.

Re: New York Times tech workers union votes to authorize a strike

#106

Post by Manuel_D »

jawerty wrote: post #68

As someone who worked here seems odd they'd need a strike pretty good pay/benefits

Many media companies do not have particularly good pay, nor interesting work, for their developers. I spoke with someone who worked as a dev at Bloomberg, and he described his job as "hooking up javascript listeners all day".

Re: New York Times tech workers union votes to authorize a strike

#107

Post by jamamp »

delichon wrote: post #5

How does one refrain from crossing the virtual picket line of such a strike? Is it to not do business with any company with this union's workers, for the duration?

I remember during the screenwriters guild strikes in the Movie and TV industry, many writers were advocating _not_ to boycott movies/TV. Mainly in order to show that the people still wanted to watch the media that these people were writing for and creating, so that the strike held more legitimacy: we are needed to produce more content for your business.

I suppose sometimes it makes sense to boycott, but not all the time.

Re: New York Times tech workers union votes to authorize a strike

#108

Post by paxys »

taeric wrote: post #92

What are their demands? And, cynically, is anyone even going to notice that they are striking? Seems unlikely, to be honest.

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that people will notice when the New York Times website stops working.

Re: New York Times tech workers union votes to authorize a strike

#109

Post by arcticbull »

tqi wrote: post #97

> Kathy Zhang, a senior analytics manager with The Times and the guild's unit chair, said, "Management has really dragged its feet when it comes to bargaining," between the union formation and now. Maybe tangential, but I would have guessed people managers were not eligible to be a member of the union. Does anyone know how eligibility is determined?

Maybe the title is for an IC role, as for a "customer success manager."

Re: New York Times tech workers union votes to authorize a strike

#110

Post by klyrs »

mc32 wrote: post #18
neaden wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Can such a left wing cornerstone really afford to look anti-union inside their own house?" - The NYTimes isn't left wing and being anti-union is entirely within their wheelhouse. Now they won't come out and say "We don't like unions" all their issues will of course be why this specific union isn't a good idea at this specific time, but they'd never willingly accept a union unless they really don't think they have a…

The NYT has been liberal since I can remember; however, up until relatively recent decades, it was respected by conservatives as well as liberals. Now it reflects liberal and progressive povs.

On the other hand I have recently seen George W. Bush being described as a progressive because he wouldn't say who he's voting for. Left/right determination seems to be made purely on loyalty to a single individual in today's US politics. So if that's where we're at, NYT is liberal because it won't endorse Trump. That's fine, but let's just say that.

In the world outside of petty dictatorships, though, left/right determination is made on the basis of alignment with various policies and philosophies -- so increasingly, people within the US are losing credibility when it comes to any conversation about left/right politics.

Post reply on HN