311–320 of 675 posts
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]
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?
Because it’s a different job at a different company?
I get that if you have leverage you may want to exert it (either individually or through a union) to get higher pay, but the argument that 2 different companies should pay the same amount seems ridiculous. Go get the job at the higher paying company if that’s what you want.
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?
Companies choose what they pay their employees (within the bounds of the law) and that might be influenced by what another company pays similar employees.
Imagine somebody at Google saying, “Sorry we won’t pay you more — just found out they pay less at the NYT.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Might want to reread https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and especially this section: In Comments Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They’re also incredibly non-diverse and complain about big tech being non-diverse.
Always the same story... A few years ago a big left French newspaper (Libération) always pushing for "diversity" published a photo of their staff, which was like 98- 100% white.
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.
You are reading this on another news outlet!
Last year, NYT tech workers also had a strike over return -to-office, as covered by Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new-york-times-tech-workers...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
>What you're describing is relying on the generosity of the corporations who employ them No i'm not. I'm highlighting the market forces within a competitive, highly paid job market. These people have options. Other industries, not so much.