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

271–280 of 675 posts

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

#271

Post by robertlagrant »

berdario wrote: post #257
robertlagrant wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> 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

This seems really simplistic. It's certainly happened before, but it seems ludicrous to just assume that executive whim is always the cause. Another reason is if a company is doing badly financially, something needs to change.

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

#272

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#273

Post by SiempreViernes »

robertlagrant wrote: post #247
paxys wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the union should attempt to make an agreement They are literally striking because the company is refusing to negotiate with them.

> more than two years of bargaining How is this a refusal to negotiate?

Saying "no" for two years is not a negotiation.

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

#274

Post by ExoticPearTree »

oconnore wrote: post #32
addicted wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The guild, which was formed in 2022, has yet to secure a contract after more than two years of bargaining. This seems like a pretty reasonable reason to strike. Arguably it’s the most justifiable reason to strike.

[flagged]

Basically it means they want job security no matter what.

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

#275

Post by ExoticPearTree »

javagram wrote: post #46
oconnore wrote: post #25

As I understand it, the earliest they could actually strike would be 80 days from today, as per the Taft-Hartley act, putting the strike on November 29 (after the election). Something seems broken when a group is paid relatively fair wages ( https://www.levels.fyi/companies/the-new-york-times-company/... ), works 35 hours a week before overtime, and is talking about going on a strike. I don't think that fits with the…

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?

> If NYT has the money it makes sense to me for the employees to ask for higher pay.

Nothing is stopping an employee from asking. Can they get more money? It depends on NYT if they want to pay more or find another employee who settles for less and fires the demanding employee. Win/Win for the company. Greed is good if it is within bounds.

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

#276

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

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

#277

Post by whatevaa »

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.

I'm a senior and I would say juniors have it way harder. I could find a new job, new grads - yeah, gonna be hard. Money is tighter, and new grads are oftenly money sinks, thus no hiring.

I'm in EU but in the eastern part of it.

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

#278

Post by pydry »

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

Hanging the threat of layoffs over employees certainly motivates employees, in much the same way stack ranking does, but it does it in such a way that is ultimately destructive to the organization.

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

#279

Post by HPsquared »

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?

Projection is a thing (assuming the opinions they print are their own)
Post reply on HN