New York Times tech workers union votes to authorize a strike

Post by tptacek » Tue, Sep 10, 2024, 9:00 PM UTC

paperplatter wrote: post #70

tptacek wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not transacting with a business in solidarity with an ongoing strike is a boycott. People can boycott the NYT in support of the strike. But crossing a picket line is a much, much bigger deal than not participating in a boycott. If you skip the NYT Mini Crossword for a week to support the strikers, I respect that, but I'm going to keep pushing for that sweet 15s finish this week and I'm going to sleep fine doing it.

There's no need to justify how you do business with the NYT, whether it's playing a crossword game or accepting a job. But either one is referred to as crossing the picket line.

Post by tptacek » Tue, Sep 10, 2024, 9:02 PM UTC

Cushman wrote: post #148

wpietri wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that a boycott is different, and for the NYT the terms are pretty distinct. But when employees are picketing a retail business, the two are much more entangled, so I think the common use of the phrase has shifted away from the precision you're expecting it to have.

It’s not a shift in usage, it’s a term of art. Informally it could mean just crossing the line to enter the business, but unless you live in a turn-of-the-century company town, no one in the union is expecting anything related to that by default. In labor , “respecting the picket line” is a moral action for union members (or scabs) which by definition couldn’t apply to a spontaneous self-directed consumer boycott. No…

Post by fiiibilk » Tue, Sep 10, 2024, 9:03 PM UTC

spondylosaurus wrote: post #64

mandmandam wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is definitely to the left of the median US voter. No, it isn't, and it's not remotely close. The median US voter is far more left wing than you would know from politics and media. Most voters actually support an arms embargo vs Israel, support universal healthcare, support action on climate change, want an end to the prison industrial complex, want minimum wage increases, gun control, an end to predatory college…

See also: the NYT's coverage of trans issues, which in recent years has tried to both-sides the topic in a way that gives fundamentalist hate groups equal oxygen as the fucking APA. No self-respecting leftist publication is handing the mic to Mumsnet users and conversion therapy advocates. (Contrast that to the New Yorker, which is hardly a commie rag and yet has been unambiguously progressive on that front, among ot…

Post by aleph_minus_one » Tue, Sep 10, 2024, 9:06 PM UTC

Post by yieldcrv » Tue, Sep 10, 2024, 9:08 PM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #131

yieldcrv wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

According to Google, the NY Times has a profit margin of 6-10% in most quarters. They're not exactly rolling in cash. Not to mention, there's a bunch of other teams at the NY Times that presumably want raises too. What's the justification for giving a raise to developers, but not to the writers that produce the company's main product?