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

211–220 of 675 posts

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

#211

Post by dgfitz »

consteval wrote: post #200
ImJamal wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was that on the front page? I just checked and couldn't find it there.

Does that make a difference or are y'all just constantly moving goalposts to fuel the narrative that media is inherently left-leaning? 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 rig…

> ...to fuel the narrative that media is inherently left-leaning?

Right around this time 8 years ago, the election was over... in the media. Clinton won, trump didn't, in like September of 2016. Like, the world was collectively shocked. Because, according to the media, trump was cooked.

How does that square?

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

#212

Post by benpacker »

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?

If they don’t have firing / hiring power, they aren’t management according to US labor law.

Most tech “* manager” roles where the object of management is not a person or team likely qualify.

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

#213

Post by dgfitz »

relaxing wrote: post #171
thegrim33 wrote: post #112

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…

Ross Douthat is still employed so your assertion falls flat on its face. Aside from that, right now I see an item claiming Harris has flip-flopped on progressive policies.

> Ross Douthat is still employed so your assertion falls flat on its face.

I have no idea who that is.

> Aside from that, right now I see an item claiming Harris has flip-flopped on progressive policies.

I have no idea if this is true. Has she? Who is the authority on that?

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

#214

Post by maximinus_thrax »

quickthrowman wrote: post #184
dymk wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[flagged]

In that case, why is there such a thing as insider trading?

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

#215

Post by taeric »

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.

I'm not entirely clear that going into a potentially rough storm is a great time to rock the boat? Curious if you have any studies that show this is a good time?

Agreed that getting a contract sooner than later has to be a good idea. I'm actually surprised they have gone as long as they have with no contract.

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

#216

Post by ruraljuror »

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.

> Absolutely. This is the worst job market for tech workers in probably 20 years.

Any sources for this? Asking out of curiosity—not disagreement.

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

#217

Post by maximinus_thrax »

lacker wrote: post #194
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…

This doesn't seem like a purely economical strike. It's not a coincidence that the most unionized tech workforce in the country is the New York Times, an organization that is fundamentally pro-union in its politics. When the organization as a whole is consistently delivering a pro-union message, doesn't it just make sense that the employees would tend to be ideologically pro-union?

> the New York Times, an organization that is fundamentally pro-union in its politics

No, it is definitely not. NYT is neoliberal. Don't confuse the cultural left with the economic/social/fiscal left. NYT is not at all pro-labor. Other people have discussed this extensively in the comments below.

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

#218

Post by klyrs »

mc32 wrote: post #208
klyrs wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't seen Cheney being lauded for anything other than maintaining his stand against somebody he has been calling a criminal, coward, and worse for years. I haven't seen a single democrat show excitement over policies supported by Cheney, except when he says that the law should apply to Trump as well as the rest of us. So, again, what you're calling weird is largely a result of loyalty to a person instead of actu…

Well, for one Kamala herself said she was proud to be endorsed by Dick, one previously deemed the be(s)te noir of the left.

That's entirely in line with how I characterized the Democratic response to Cheney's endorsement. They still don't like him, but Democratic policy has been to reach across the aisle for most if not all of my lifetime -- so they'll accept that endorsement with aplomb.

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

#219

Post by hungie »

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]

High paid workers are still workers and deserve worker solidarity. We have more in common with them than either of us have with owners and execs.

And agree with you along every one of those (except police, who are tasked with protecting capital).

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

#220

Post by paperplatter »

mandmandam wrote: post #176
tptacek wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a deeper and more important subtlety here: there's a sort of moral obligation not to break a strike, but except in some specific circumstances, there really isn't an obligation to support a boycott, any more than there's an obligation to put a pro-labor bumper sticker on your car. Breaking a streak and ignoring a boycott are not equally weighted. (My kid brother is a labor person, so really I'm just v…

> "a labor person" ... Are we supposed to know what that means? The way you're using it, it sounds like a pejorative... Which puts something of a spin on your particular pedantry here. > there really isn't an obligation to support a boycott I think the Irish - who invented the term - would disagree with you on that point. Not every boycott is worth supporting, sure. But if a boycott is worth supporting (say, divestin…

Probably means someone who thinks there's a moral obligation to follow a union-requested boycott.
Post reply on HN