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

161–170 of 675 posts

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

#161

Post by bee_rider »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #95
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a future where the world keeps getting better, would it be fair that "exploitative" could fall to such a weak use? By your logic, that would be acceptable.

In a Star Trek future, yes, refusing to allow a class of employee free use of the replicator would be considered exploitative. Why not? But instead of worrying about some far-off Magic Wish-Fulfillment Future, we could be discussing how they're actually be exploited now .

I wish everybody in this thread could have just said what their opinions were, instead of masking them behind increasingly leading and ridiculous rhetorical questions.

I agree with you the exploitation should not be measured by some absolute bar based on the expectations of some lost past era with bad labor laws.

But Star Trek hypotheticals could be the most productive perspective, could they?

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

#162

Post by paperplatter »

wpietri wrote: post #43
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.

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 even a shift, it's the original meaning. There are/were physical picket lines that you would literally cross to enter a business.

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

#163

Post by debacle »

evantbyrne wrote: post #160
aleph_minus_one wrote: post #157

It is not clear to me whether going on a strike is a good idea for the New York Times tech workers: Since media is not a sector that has high margins, when a company gets under pressure to have to increase the salaries (e.g. by strikes), the management better starts to analyze how you can reduce the number of, in this case, tech workers because with thin margins, budging in these negotiations is much more dangerous f…

Maybe they want to stay in news media. When I worked at The Atlantic, a lot of my coworkers were highly motivated by the subject matter of their work and perceived quality of their newsroom.

Then, like gaming or Hollywood, their salaries will be lower.

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

#164

Post by dymk »

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #157

It is not clear to me whether going on a strike is a good idea for the New York Times tech workers: Since media is not a sector that has high margins, when a company gets under pressure to have to increase the salaries (e.g. by strikes), the management better starts to analyze how you can reduce the number of, in this case, tech workers because with thin margins, budging in these negotiations is much more dangerous f…

Presumably, the tech workers at NYT have a better idea of if striking is a good idea, as they’re employed there and have better visibility into motives and margins

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

#165

Post by dymk »

debacle wrote: post #163
evantbyrne wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they want to stay in news media. When I worked at The Atlantic, a lot of my coworkers were highly motivated by the subject matter of their work and perceived quality of their newsroom.

Then, like gaming or Hollywood, their salaries will be lower.

And they’re protected by a union

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

#166

Post by WaitWaitWha »

I am trying to justify 622 Tech workers with the 700mm visits noted.

Can someone explain it to me?

622 * $124,584 [0] * 1.25 = $96,864,060/year

Their CPM and CPC would need to be seriously fine tuned to sustain this.

$5 per 1,000 visitors (CPM): they would need 19.37 billion ad impressions.

Similar problem when calculating CPC with $0.10 to $2 range.

I cannot see how they are still in business.

[0] https://www.roberthalf.com/us/en/insights/career-development...

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

#167

Post by Cushman »

tptacek wrote: post #153
Cushman wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A scab is someone who works in violation of a strike. It's not a generic term for anybody disfavored by labor activists.

Ouch! Fair cop since we’re nitpicking, but I was trying to be cute about that — the joke started out more like “you’re technically crossing the line to scab as a strikebreaker”. I’m aware that it still doesn’t make sense unless there’s a sympathy action by the strikebreakers’ union, unfunny and unhelpful in the first place, thanks for the correction :)

Edit: Ah shoot not again. What I meant to say was “scabbing as an agent provocateur”. Sorry, I’ll quit while I’m ahead!

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

#168

Post by aleph_minus_one »

paxys wrote: post #105
strict9 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> urgency on the workers' part is to lock up contracts before the election in order to prevent mass layoffs right after.

If workers fear mass layoffs, going on strike is a bad idea. Instead, in such a situation the union should attempt to make an agreement with the employer of the kind "no salary increase (as it would be appropriate in consideration of the inflation), but job security for the next years".

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

#169

Post by dwaltrip »

WaitWaitWha wrote: post #166

I am trying to justify 622 Tech workers with the 700mm visits noted. Can someone explain it to me? 622 * $124,584 [0] * 1.25 = $96,864,060/year Their CPM and CPC would need to be seriously fine tuned to sustain this. $5 per 1,000 visitors (CPM): they would need 19.37 billion ad impressions. Similar problem when calculating CPC with $0.10 to $2 range. I cannot see how they are still in business. [0] https://www.robert…

Don’t forget to include subscription revenue, also their extra offerings of games, cooking, etc

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

#170

Post by forty »

ugh123 wrote: post #152
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.

[flagged]

Maybe this industry as a whole is driven by capitalists who all have a common interest in taking a bigger share of the pie than they deserve? :)

ie it's not because you are well paid that you are paid enough or fairly

Post reply on HN