191–200 of 675 posts
[flagged]
This type of comment shows up on every single post about unions or layoffs. The answer is always the same: It might take you and a friend a weekend to build a [insert company] clone, but by the time you need to support the level of customers as [insert company] it'll certainly need a lot more work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Just a quick look, here's one that plays into the mainstream narrative that Hamas is hiding out in hospitals and schools and therefore it's understandable to bomb them: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/10/world/middleeast/airstrik...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would be more equitable? https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=New+York+Times&assumpti... puts the revenue per employee at $422,656. They've got 5900 employees and https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/07/business/media/new-york-t... says a quarterly profit of $104.7 million. $400M / 5900 gives about $68,000 profit per employee. So, what's reasonable? Would giving everyone a $65k pay raise and zeroing out the profit fo…
Union negotiation isn't always about money, though it is usually part of it. It's also about working conditions and benefits. Also you can get a raise without "costing" anything extra in the expense column, such as fewer working hours for the same pay/benefits.
Things like making sure that AI isn't used in certain capacities to reduce the staff size wouldn't be unreasonable.
As of yet, the contents of the negotiation aren't public - so we can only guess.
In the meantime, the idea that everyone should be able to make Big Tech wages ignores the reality that most companies aren't Big Tech and have a revenue per employee that is a small fraction of it... and are running on much slimmer profit margins.
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…
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.
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 even a shift, it's the original meaning. There are/were physical picket lines that you would literally cross to enter a business.
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]
There's modern day slavery in the world. Today. Even in the US we have compelled labor - it's a whole thing in the Georgia prison system. Those McDonald's burger flippers are essentially slaves, and I bet you didn't know that.
But if we subscribe to the ideology of "X has it worse" nothing would get done, ever.
The reality is even in seemingly prosperous industries workers, laborers, DO NOT have equal leverage in negotiations. Not even close. What you're describing is relying on the generosity of the corporations who employ them. A fine strategy, but hardly sustainable. They, too, can look to improve their situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
They are literally striking because the company is refusing to negotiate with them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This type of comment shows up on every single post about unions or layoffs. The answer is always the same: It might take you and a friend a weekend to build a [insert company] clone, but by the time you need to support the level of customers as [insert company] it'll certainly need a lot more work.
How many of the support staff are in the union? The union is for the tech workers.
You and your buddies can build a crossword or whatever the hell in a weekend. You can't deliver is to 100 million people tomorrow, while also maintaining one of the US' largest newpapers online.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just a quick look, here's one that plays into the mainstream narrative that Hamas is hiding out in hospitals and schools and therefore it's understandable to bomb them: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/10/world/middleeast/airstrik...
Was that on the front page? I just checked and couldn't find it there.
Because it's really not - especially not in the US. Go look through their articles. How many serve corporate interests? How many are fundamentally ultra-capitalists?
You guys act like these are commies. No, they're right-leaning, just not far right insane wackos (Fox News). You're right, they're not out here questioning how black Kamala is. No, that absolutely does not make them left wing.