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

321–330 of 675 posts

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

#321

Post by greenie_beans »

thegrim33 wrote: post #112
mint2 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of what infographic makers declare, the NYT newsroom is not “left” leaning. Their coverage is much more complicated than left vs right, but one theme is they don’t question the loudest narratives, and they hold grudges when they perceive someone to not give them enough access. The right tends to be louder and more uniform and persistent in messaging, so that coloring often gets unconsciously added to artic…

Well here's a challenge for you, we can easily put your viewpoint to the test: Go on the NYT website right now and find me a single article currently on the front page that's negative about leftist policies or politicians, or a single article that's positive about rightist policies or politicians. I bet you can't find any. Repeat this experiment, any minute, any hour, any day, any year, for the last 10 years, and you…

find anything about gaza

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

#322

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

bawolff wrote: post #252
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".

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.

Sure, but every time I see 'It has been a very lean year for us' from executives, I immediately see Simpsons Burns cash fight. It is annoying how well they captured some US time transcending rituals of the upper class.

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

#323

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

ugh123 wrote: post #152
hungie wrote: post #31

Good for them. More workers need to be understanding just how much they are being exploited by their leadership and demand a more equitable piece of the pie.

[flagged]

I say it is about time. We recently got a management recognition of the simple fact that remote works better for some cases ( where we had to say that if they want ridiculous project done on time, I want to not travel to office ).

We need this shit in writing, in policy. Fuck old guard management.

edit: clarified 'it'

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

#324

Post by snapcaster »

taeric wrote: post #215
strict9 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. This is the worst job market for tech workers in probably 20 years. Many employed in tech are hoping to keep their job, let alone bargain for higher wages and remote work. Hard to imagine this effort having as much leverage if it were to happen after the election.

I'm not entirely clear that going into a potentially rough storm is a great time to rock the boat? Curious if you have any studies that show this is a good time? Agreed that getting a contract sooner than later has to be a good idea. I'm actually surprised they have gone as long as they have with no contract.

Do you actually delegate your thinking to studies like this? If someone linked a study covering strike timing would you read it and make your opinion? this almost reads like a parody

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

#325

Post by datadrivenangel »

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #209
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

This is trade-off that a company (and thee employee, too) has to make: - does the company want to be able to easily get rid of "undesired"/"lazy" employees? For this option, it will likely have to pay bigger salaries. - on the other hand, for the option to have job security, an employee will have to accept that the expected salary is lower, i.e. the company can save money on salaries, but cannot easily fire the emplo…

Unless the company needs us more than we need it and we can have both better security and higher salary?

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

#326

Post by thinkingtoilet »

ETH_start wrote: post #255

[flagged]

You think the unions own the paper? The editorial board? I have news for you, if there is bias it's not coming from the people not in control. It's coming from the ultra-wealthy people who own these media outlets and I promise you they are not pro-union.

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

#327

Post by ipaddr »

morgante wrote: post #256
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

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

Because you get paid less and have to strike for a small raise.

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

#328

Post by giantg2 »

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.

I wanted to look at the pay study, but all it did was link me to another page with the same pay blurbs, but no actual study.

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

#329

Post by cantSpellSober »

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?

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

The journalists (and tech workers) don't decide their own salary.

You conflated "they" as both management and the people being managed, to make it "ironic."

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

#330

Post by giantg2 »

donohoe wrote: post #295
ljlolel wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

“Incredibly non-diverse”? No. They are in a better position than most https://www.nytco.com/2023-new-york-times-diversity-and-incl... The my don’t complain about tech being non-diverse, they report that it is non-diverse - which is true.

If you read some of the linked articles off of the one posted a few comments back, then you will see that the recent cuts have disproportionately affected minorities, minorities are making less, and that minorities are receiving lower evaluation scores. So it seems they do have a diversity problem.
Post reply on HN