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

111–120 of 675 posts

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

#111

Post by WaitWaitWha »

paxys wrote: post #50
notfried wrote: post #17

[flagged]

NYT is among the top 50 most visited websites in the world and gets upwards of 700M visitors a year. They have apps on every platform. They have interactive content. They host videos and livestreams. They have games. They have a huge social media presence. They have an ads platform. They have the same overall technical challenges as any large tech company.

> NYT is among the top 50 most visited websites in the world

Not according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-visited_websites

or https://www.similarweb.com/top-websites/

or https://www.semrush.com/trending-websites/global/all

> gets upwards of 700M visitors a year.

archive.org the last one on Semrush list, gets 255.99M a month. At 59M a month, NYT is nowhere near the top 50.

"LooLoo Kids" YouTube channel, making nursery rhymes and children's songs, based in Romania has more viewers and subscribers than NYT. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-subscribed_YouTub...

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

#112

Post by thegrim33 »

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…

Well here's a challenge for you, we can easily put your viewpoint to the test:

Go on the NYT website right now and find me a single article currently on the front page that's negative about leftist policies or politicians, or a single article that's positive about rightist policies or politicians.

I bet you can't find any.

Repeat this experiment, any minute, any hour, any day, any year, for the last 10 years, and you will get the same exact results.

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

#113

Post by mc32 »

klyrs wrote: post #110
mc32 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 det…

The neocon thing is weird. Bernie and others used to compare Cheney with pretty unsavory characters in history, but now he’s lauded by progressives. This shit is getting weird. Some weird realignment is happening where former enemies are bedfellows now with a new enemy. In very loose terms, Republicans are subverting previous Democratic issues and the Democrats are subverting previous neocon issues. The Dems now get most of “big money”, new Republicans are now the populists. Broad strokes of course, but that’s how it’s shaping up.

If anyone remembers, in the eighties the Repubs were into importing foreign labor (i.e. cheap; hence “no uvas”) and Bernie used to protest against dumping refugees in his state. This has reversed!

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

#114

Post by taeric »

Manuel_D wrote: post #103
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

I saw that mentioned. Was hoping someone had a link that was a bit more informative.

Edit: This is also an older link?

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

#115

Post by matrix87 »

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…

They're about as left wing as hillary clinton. only when it's convenient for them

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

#116

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

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

#118

Post by Manuel_D »

paxys wrote: post #82
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

So then nothing done by anyone throughout history can ever be considered exploitative because you can go back and point to a slightly older period in history?

Exploitation involves some level of unfairness, deceptiveness, or coercion. How are NYT employees being exploited? I could think of some scenarios: e.g. being hired with the promise of indefinite remote work and subsequently being given an RTO mandate. But I haven't seen any such situation at the Times described.

Overall, it's hard to exploit a workforce that is in high demand. Oftentimes people talk about "exploitation" when industries can pay less than average wages because of some unique draw to that industry. For example, game development is known for subpar wages and long hours. But people are willing to take those jobs because of the allure of being a video game developer instead of a typical software developer. Some would call this exploitation, but it's a misuse of that term. The workers chose to accept the job at the compensation offered, and if they took a salary cut to work on games that's their prerogative - not exploitation.

I think it's likely that this is the latter situation. The NYTimes is a household name, and is a big draw for workers. Because of that prestige, they're able to meet their personnel requirements without competitive salaries.

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

#119

Post by AnotherGoodName »

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?

Generally anyone below director level makes sense imho.

The biggest advocate of pay rises and improvements to conditions is often the line level managers and those one step up from the line level managers. If this is a typical corporate job title this is a manager of line level managers. He probably has quarterly 1:1s or at least office hours supporting those at the lowest levels. It’s not like you become a line level manager, accept the 20% pay rises and suddenly change your outlook on everything. You’re never that far removed. Advocacy is important for management so I have no issues with this.

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

#120

Post by cruffle_duffle »

segasaturn wrote: post #104
mint2 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It also was unquestioningly supportive of any and all covid NPI's. NYT was one of the major publications that would routinely report the "covid kill rate" at like 4% despite massive data suggesting it was at least one or two orders of magnitude off depending on the age bracket.
Post reply on HN