New York Times tech workers union votes to authorize a strike
31–40 of 675 posts
Re: New York Times tech workers union votes to authorize a strike
#32As 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…
> 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.
Re: New York Times tech workers union votes to authorize a strike
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I think at least these days, usage of the term can include customers. For example, this from the University of Maine's Bureau of Labor Education: "Customers may refuse to cross a picket line and picketers have the right to ask customers to honor their picket but should not intimidate, block customer access, disparage a company’s product, or say anything that is untrue or casts the product in a false or misleading lig…
Re: New York Times tech workers union votes to authorize a strike
#34[flagged]
Re: New York Times tech workers union votes to authorize a strike
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps the NYT isn't left-wing in a global context, and it is likely centrist in New York City, but it is definitely to the left of the median US voter. They're probably anti-union in this case because they're on tenuous financial footing, and unions in New York have a history of squeezing their employers out of business. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NYT/new-york-times...
> Perhaps the NYT isn't left-wing in a global context, and it is likely centrist in New York City, but it is definitely to the left of the median US voter. That isn't true at all. You're probably thinking of the NYT 20 years ago, under the Bush administration. Do you read the newspaper, or are you parroting talking points? I used to subscribe until the blatantly conservative bias became overwhelming. > They're probab…
You can't just look at results over the last four years when you're analyzing a newspaper that's 172 years old. They've had massive declines in recent years, which caused huge cutbacks. I think it's reasonable for them to try to preserve their options to cut costs in the future.
Re: New York Times tech workers union votes to authorize a strike
#36Re: New York Times tech workers union votes to authorize a strike
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Can such a left wing cornerstone really afford to look anti-union inside their own house?" - The NYTimes isn't left wing and being anti-union is entirely within their wheelhouse. Now they won't come out and say "We don't like unions" all their issues will of course be why this specific union isn't a good idea at this specific time, but they'd never willingly accept a union unless they really don't think they have a…
> The NYTimes isn't left wing Allsides media bias rating for NYT is lean left[1], a -2.2 with -6 as the most extreme and 0 as neutral. Rating is left for their opinion section[2], a -4. 1. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times 2. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times-opinion-...
Editorial Review: Sep 2018
The NYT's slant has shifted post 2020.
Re: New York Times tech workers union votes to authorize a strike
#38[flagged]
NYTimes games section is more popular than its articles. They're basically a mobile game company that happens to have a news division.
I think people are underestimating how much tech it could take to run a company like the NYTimes.
Re: New York Times tech workers union votes to authorize a strike
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Can such a left wing cornerstone really afford to look anti-union inside their own house?" - The NYTimes isn't left wing and being anti-union is entirely within their wheelhouse. Now they won't come out and say "We don't like unions" all their issues will of course be why this specific union isn't a good idea at this specific time, but they'd never willingly accept a union unless they really don't think they have a…
Perhaps the NYT isn't left-wing in a global context, and it is likely centrist in New York City, but it is definitely to the left of the median US voter. They're probably anti-union in this case because they're on tenuous financial footing, and unions in New York have a history of squeezing their employers out of business. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NYT/new-york-times...
No, it isn't, and it's not remotely close.
The median US voter is far more left wing than you would know from politics and media. Most voters actually support an arms embargo vs Israel, support universal healthcare, support action on climate change, want an end to the prison industrial complex, want minimum wage increases, gun control, an end to predatory college costs and loans, stronger worker's rights, reproductive rights, cannabis legalization, reduction in militarism, affordable housing, etc.
The NYT is central to fooling these "median voters" into supporting politicians and parties that have absolutely no intention of supporting genuine left wing action.
To say the NYT supports unions in general is to ignore very recent history, such as their coverage of Amazon and Starbucks union efforts. You also need to ignore a very very long and well described slant against left wing causes in general. Here, have a nice digestible Chomsky piece from nearly 30 years ago: https://chomsky.info/199710__/
Re: New York Times tech workers union votes to authorize a strike
#40As 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…