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

251–260 of 675 posts

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

#251

Post by kortilla »

consteval wrote: post #197
ugh123 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

These "X has it worse" arguments are tiresome and lack any sort of rigor. 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…

> 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

The prisoners yes, the McDonald’s workers absolutely not. The avg McDonald’s worker tenure is quite short and having briefly been one, I can assure you it’s nothing like slavery. Get a grip.

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

#252

Post by bawolff »

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #168
paxys wrote: post #105

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".

Well that depends - are the layoffs because there is no money left, or is it because the company wants to allocate resources differently?

In the former case, you can't get blood from a stone. However in the latter, strikes can still be effective.

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

#253

Post by bawolff »

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…

> Instead of going on strike, it would in my opinion be a better idea for the tech workers to look for a better paid job in an industry with higher margins.

If they alternative is quiting, than they don't have very much to lose by going on strike.

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

#254

Post by tomcam »

fullstop wrote: post #79
ipsum2 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYTimes games section is more popular than its articles. They're basically a mobile game company that happens to have a news division.

Guilty. I've done the daily crossword for the last 445 days.

I was concerned you broke your streak on 6/23/23 but I heaved a great sigh of relief when you picked it up again on the 24th

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

#256

Post by morgante »

brianwawok wrote: post #179
aleph_minus_one wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

Which is a great way to have a company full of people who can’t be fired with no motivation, harming the parent organization

Exactly why I would run far away from any workplace that unionized.

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

#257

Post by berdario »

robertlagrant wrote: post #246
brianwawok wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is a great way to have a company full of people who can’t be fired with no motivation, harming the parent organization

Presumably striking isn't a great sign of motivation already. If you think you're so unimpactful that your job is at risk, you probably aren't very motivated.

Layoffs at big companies have nothing to do with individual impact.

There might be exceptions, and with companies that are cash-strapped (or smaller companies in general) the situation might be different.

But for big companies, it's just a matter of the executives deciding that they don't want to invest in a specific org/project anymore ( or they want to offshore ) and if you're in one of the affected orgs/projects, you're out of luck.

But presumably NYTimes doesn't employ that many people, and even fewer tech workers

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

#258

Post by janalsncm »

It should tell you something that 95% of the union voted to strike. I found more information from them here:

https://www.nyguild.org/post/new-york-times-tech-guild-votes...

I wonder how other news outlets will cover this, if at all. They’re probably afraid others will get the same idea.

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

#259

Post by morgante »

shagie wrote: post #193
Clubber wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are potentially many reasonable things to negotiate for. So far, all the information I can find is "stalled contract negotiations". Working without a contract is a perfectly valid reason to strike. 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, th…

> Things like making sure that AI isn't used in certain capacities to reduce the staff size wouldn't be unreasonable.

Yes it would. Explicitly demanding inefficiency is exactly why unions are terrible for innovation and progress.

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

#260

Post by janalsncm »

tptacek wrote: post #9
delichon wrote: post #5

How does one refrain from crossing the virtual picket line of such a strike? Is it to not do business with any company with this union's workers, for the duration?

Continuing to do business with a company whose employees are striking isn't "crossing the picket line". Crossing the picket line means undermining a strike directly by supply labor when organized labor is using a labor embargo as leverage. To avoid crossing the NYT picket line, don't write for the NYT.

This is the tech guild, so it’s even more narrow. PMs, POs, and SWEs.
Post reply on HN