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

261–270 of 675 posts

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

#261

Post by tomcam »

kennywinker wrote: post #67
mbrumlow wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The complexity of a massive org like the NYT is significantly non trivial. I think that is the point. At face value what they produce, simply should not be that complex. It seems it’s complex for the sake of being a big complex organization. And unions will only solidify that into stone to prevent any sort of optimization that would bring the complexity down.

> And unions will only solidify that into stone to prevent any sort of optimization that would bring the complexity down. It looks like you've bought into some anti-union talking points. Efficiency is sometimes good. But sometimes it's just a way of shifting profit from workers to capital. As an example: if I replace 100 workers managing a server farm with an AWS account - the money that would have paid 100 humans to…

It appears you’ve bought into some anti-capitalism talking points. Wealth concentrating in shareholder hands may very well make the world better. A huge amount of that is in pension funds. This helps your parents remain independent in retirement.

And while I agree that eliminating those 100 workers is terribly painful for many of them, it’s incumbent upon them to plan ahead for those contingencies. Likewise the investors must be ready for the Times to go out of business if the strike hurts them enough. The stock market is a brutally zero-sum game that doesn’t guarantee success to anyone.

From long before I embarked on my tech career I was always studying for the next job. To me it was evident that high paying tech jobs that required relatively little investment in learning were likely to be volatile. Lots of competition.

I subscribe to the Times and am not anti-union. (I also dislike the Times corporation and its owners.) Because the economy is so bad I wouldn’t recommend a strike at this time. In the 70s I watched in bafflement as the auto unions lined up unsupportable contracts that brought Detroit to its knees during a period of economic malaise very similar to this one. I couldn’t see how they could continue, and they collapsed under the weight of those contracts. I think the Times strike will backfire and hollow out he business just like the auto and recent Hollywood strikes did.

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

#262

Post by rincebrain »

morgante wrote: post #259
shagie wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's likely always going to be tension between how many people management thinks are necessary to do the work and the reality of people not working like machines.

If the union workers think that management would like to cut things so much that it will cause the quality of the resulting work to suffer drastically, to say nothing of their health, then they're not arguing for inefficiency.

And if they don't trust that any sort of metric for "good enough" wouldn't be gameable since the management has more expensive lawyers to write contracts than them, a blanket rule makes more logical sense than trying to bet you didn't leave a loophole.

(All opinions my own, obviously.)

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

#263

Post by weweersdfsd »

dotancohen wrote: post #250
f6v wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve been hearing the complete opposite on EU CS jobs Reddit. People say it’s impossible to get hired with no experience and just hard for seniors. There’s so much of reporting and selection bias though.

The juniors say that juniors are most affected. The experienced developers and engineers say that it is the experienced developers and engineers most affected. Everybody has their perspective.

In case of a recession, fresh grads are usually affected the worst. Really it makes sense, because work experience tends to be valued more than a degree.

https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/recessi...

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

#265

Post by sieabahlpark »

janalsncm wrote: post #258

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.

That lists the pay discrepancy but doesn't mention if there are literally any factors for the disparity such as role, responsibilities, performance, etc. It just mentions race, which gives me absolutely no usable information to give credibility.

If we are to assume black and women workers have historically been missing entirely from tech then the efforts of recent initiatives would bring fresh people in? Those newer people wouldn't have the same length of professional experience but the expectation is to be paid equal?

Put another way if the CEO is white and they make 50m and you have two employees, one black and one white who each make 50k, the average for white workers would be skewed higher? Before anyone replies "um actually, it's only workers within the guild, the CEO isn't included", okay, but does everyone in the guild have the same job title, experience, and responsibilities?

As an aside, they've structured that website like trash. Yes, I'd love to click a link to see the pay study which is just duplicated below the link without any additional information. It's like they purposely are trying to say nothing but be loud.

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

#266

Post by sieabahlpark »

maximinus_thrax wrote: post #217
lacker wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[dead]

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

#267

Post by aurareturn »

janalsncm wrote: post #258

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.

Isn’t it a little ironic that NY Times, and most east coast media, is very anti big tech and pro union while their own employees are protesting because of low wages?

Who are they to judge how big tech treats their employees when they pay their own so poorly?

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

#268

Post by loa_in_ »

maximinus_thrax wrote: post #214
quickthrowman wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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

Insider trading would be trading knowing exactly where the company is headed, their decision making process not where the company has been.

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

#269

Post by ljlolel »

aurareturn wrote: post #267
janalsncm wrote: post #258

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.

Isn’t it a little ironic that NY Times, and most east coast media, is very anti big tech and pro union while their own employees are protesting because of low wages? Who are they to judge how big tech treats their employees when they pay their own so poorly?

They’re also incredibly non-diverse and complain about big tech being non-diverse.

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

#270

Post by ynx »

cvwright wrote: post #134
javagram wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYT is the premier digital news outlet. Why should a principal SWE there get paid less than a senior SWE working on Google News, for instance? If NYT has the money it makes sense to me for the employees to ask for higher pay. What else is the original purpose of unions than to give workers power to bargain with the company?

I think the uncomfortable question for many here is, why should the SWE at Google get paid any more than the SWE at the NY Times?

That's not an uncomfortable question at all. SWE (and all employees) should be paid to the point that the owners of their company, while well-rewarded, are not sucking up a large percentage of global wealth personally...and that's the less adventurous answer.
Post reply on HN