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

361–370 of 675 posts

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

#361

Post by aleph_minus_one »

datadrivenangel wrote: post #325
aleph_minus_one wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

Employees typically only have such a strong negotiation lever in good economic times, which I guess is currently not the case.

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

#362

Post by kettlepot1337 »

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?

>> 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?

It is more than a little ironic that the NY Times complains about a "lack of diversity" in silicon valley, when practically the entire NY Times senior staff are generationally rich white people who live in Manhattan and Brooklyn.

Here is the exec staff: https://www.nytco.com/company/people/ "Filter by executive"

There are >64 million Hispanics living in the United States, yet not a single one on the NYT exec team. They have 1 token asian, 1 token black person. Half the staff is Jewish. Yet they are complaining about diversity in Silicon valley.

As a person of asian origin, there is probably no way I can get a non-crappy role at the NY Times, yet silicon valley offers enough of a meritocracy that I can get a job there without having a rich uncle.

Remember, when the establishment complains about diversity, they are actually complaining about themselves losing control to the general population. That is why colored people in executive roles in SV is so scary to newspapers.

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

#363

Post by julesqs »

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.

the editorial bias from management of NYT has always been skeptical of Google and Facebook and perhaps all of big tech because big tech was a threat to their business. Most newspapers in the US have been hollowed out because of social media and the tech industry, NYT ironically has not because they hired a real in house tech team that has kept their paper relevant.

But that doesn't mean they like paying their tech workers any more than any other management. It's just about money. Big tech is a threat to management's profits, just like workers demanding better salaries is a threat to management's profits.

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

#364

Post by taeric »

smoores wrote: post #241
taeric wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the link. Hate that a lot of their demands seem to be to leverage things they want over positions not covered by their guild. Is that actually a common thing that I just didn't know? I'd not expect a union to impact interviewing practices for all entry-level jobs somewhere.

I’m not sure exactly what you mean, but most non-managerial employees at the Times are now unionized. It is no one’s goal to improve the labor standards of the union members at the expense of non-union employees. It is nearly impossible to obtain contract language covering anything other than workplace and employment conditions for union members, as the company isn’t legally required to negotiate over any other topic…

Many of the concerns listed seem to call out jobs that are not part of this union. Stuff like, "Women and people of color are significantly underrepresented in the most highly compensated reporting and editing roles in the newsroom." I agree that is a concern, I'm not clear that "reporting and editing roles" are part of this union's leverage, though.

I think that is the worst of them, so maybe it impacted how I read the rest? And, again, if this is normal for union concerns, so be it.

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

#365

Post by Zigurd »

ekianjo wrote: post #318
Larrikin wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which ones?

every employer that has quotas for non-white employees? that necessarily follows. not that its not limited to race. if an org wants more women they will actively select candidates based on gender first.

Comparing a specific employer against "every employer that has quotas" is not a useful comparison.

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

#366

Post by reissbaker »

donohoe wrote: post #296
ETH_start wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NY Times is pro-union and anti-big-tech in large part because its journalists are unionized and tech platforms disintermediate unions. The workers that produce articles and create the newsroom culture have a conflict of interest that affects its editorial slant. There is also the factor that tech threatens the ad revenue of traditional news media.

I worked at NYT for seven years and I can say from direct personal experience that your many points are not true.

Kelsey Piper, a journalist at Vox, leaked two years ago that the NYT has had a years-long top-down directive to only write negative stories about tech [1]. Plenty of journalists have confirmed this since. Since you worked at the NYT for seven years, want to explain that particular policy in light of your rebuttal that the NYT had no conflict of interest and wasn't trying to smear tech companies?

1: https://x.com/KelseyTuoc/status/1588231892792328192

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

#367

Post by vrosas »

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?

Their current CEO, Meredith Kopit Levien, is about as let-them-eat-cake as they come. She was doing a town hall years back when they were forcing everyone to “hotel” desks so they could lease out more floors of their HQ in Times Square, when she mentioned she’s giving up one of her two offices in the building but it’s ok because one was “mostly for shoes, anyway”.

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

#368

Post by taeric »

snapcaster wrote: post #324
taeric wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If I was in a position where a decision impacted me directly, I would, of course, be willing to act on what information I have. As a non-impacted person, I'm afforded the luxury of seeking more information.

I am not, despite the tone from this discussion, specifically anti-union.

In the spirit of your post, though; I have grown rather suspicious of any cause that is so against getting more information. Putting the question back to you, if you saw data showing that going into a potential bad market was not the time to play extra hardball when you already lack a contract, would you consider it? I would hope the answer in both directions would be yes. (That is, if it shows this is a great time to do so, then they, of course, should!)

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

#369

Post by jimbokun »

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.

> * Women, who make up 41% of the Tech Guild, earn 12% less on average than men

> * Black women and Hispanic or Latina women, who make up just over 6 percent of the Tech Guild, make 33% less than white men in the unit

> * Black workers, who make up 7 percent of the union, earn 26% less than white workers

Do they work equivalent jobs with equivalent experience?

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

#370

Post by marxisttemp »

_cs2017_ wrote: post #348

How much of a comp boost would an average NYT tech worker get if the union succeeded? Let's say 10% for the sake of the argument. Please correct me if I'm way off. Wouldn't they be able to get a much higher comp by interviewing with other local tech firms? If so, why don't they? Seems more effective than waiting and hoping for a small increase through the union.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN