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

391–400 of 675 posts

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

#391

Post by ta1243 »

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #232
strict9 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, hence the word probably. 100% anecdotal. Last recession was 2008 and job prospects for a software dev are much worse now compared to then. Go back further and it was dotcom bust a little more than 20 years ago.

I think that's highly dependant how many years of experience you had. 2008 was definitely worse for inexperienced new grads than today, but today is probably worse for people in their peak earning years as companies are trimming the fat. There are plenty of jobs out there right now, you just have to be willing to move and take a lower salary, which is much easier for young people than mid-career folks. The same defin…

> 2008 was definitely worse for inexperienced new grads than today, but today is probably worse for people in their peak earning years as companies are trimming the fat.

So same people affected both times?

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

#392

Post by Workaccount2 »

marxisttemp wrote: post #375

Let’s all remember that the vast majority of programmers are not mathematicians, nor logicians, nor authors, we are tradespeople. And you’ll notice that tradespeople in almost every other industry unionize.

Programmers are white collar engineers, I think you are confused here.

Doesn't mean they can't create/join a union, but they are not really in the tradesman category. White collar unions are much tinier.

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

#393

Post by ta1243 »

umbra07 wrote: post #288
consteval wrote: post #197

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…

People working minimum wage at fast food restaurants are not "essentially slaves".

McDonalds pays the "owners" of the prisoners, not the prisoners.

Prisoners who don't take this "opportunity" to be sold out to mcdonalds get punished.

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

#394

Post by dwallin »

jimbokun wrote: post #369
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?

It's notable that you completely skipped over the following point:

> Two-thirds of the members fired by New York Times management since the Times Tech Guild formed have been from underrepresented groups.

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

#395

Post by donohoe »

reissbaker wrote: post #366
donohoe wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/Kels…

You are making a very different claim here. The parent comment says:

>> The NY Times is pro-union and anti-big-tech [...]

That is the claim. These are the reasons it sues, and my notes on each:

* journalists are unionized and tech platforms disintermediate unions

Thats a broad generalization based on the authors opinion and not necessarily true. The attitude was not reflective of my interactions with journalists either. I would dispute this from personal experience. We can agree/disagree forever, I'm just giving my IRL experience.

* workers that produce articles and create the newsroom culture have a conflict of interest

It could be said that any journalist who covers any subject has a conflict of interest by covering that subject. Thats a bit weak.

* tech threatens the ad revenue of traditional news media.

Yeah. Rising costs of paper also threaten traditional news media. The NYT is profitable and not reliant on ad revenue streams for survival. They have a health revenue stream in number of other areas. In addition, for better or for worse, most journalists don't actually know/care that much about ad revenue given the tradition divides between business and editorial sides (I see that at many media orgs I have worked for - its not just the NYT)

So.. that was what I was talking about ("workers", not a "top-down directive").

In regards to your point: Thats a new and different claim so hard for me to speak to that.

I would note that the claim came from Matthew Yglesias. He since deleted the tweet. I would note that he never worked at the NYT as far as I can tell.

I don't know much of Kelsey Piper, but she "heard it from NYT reporters at the time" so not quite first-hand account either. Her tweet is not a "leak" (thats very different) and I see nothing to prove or substantiate it - just she "heard" it.

I'll keep an open mind but I'm skeptical.

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

#396

Post by Workaccount2 »

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #304
ynx wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not an uncomfortable question at all. SWE (and all employees) should be paid to the point that the owners of their company, while well-rewarded, are not sucking up a large percentage of global wealth personally...and that's the less adventurous answer.

... right, because people start companies out of their philanthropic desires. It is funny here how all the people are pro-union don't start their own companies to compete with the ones that exploit people and offer employees all the perks they ever dreamed of.

It's even funnier when they do start their own company and immediately crank up the back-pedaling.

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

#397

Post by golergka »

forty wrote: post #170
ugh123 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Maybe this industry as a whole is driven by capitalists who all have a common interest in taking a bigger share of the pie than they deserve? :) ie it's not because you are well paid that you are paid enough or fairly

Workers also have a common interest to take a bigger share of the pie that they deserve. Everybody has this interest. It doesn't make any side of the labor market moral or immoral, its just how any market works, and that's absolutely alright.

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

#398

Post by slt2021 »

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?

this only applies to the very senior and experienced people, like staff+ engineers who are not easily replaceable + have so much knowledge that company will suffer if they leave.

the rest of your average tech worker who pushes jsons from front-end to backend does not have much leverage and is easily replaceable with new college grad with chatGPT

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

#399

Post by whimsicalism »

dwallin wrote: post #394
jimbokun wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * 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?

It's notable that you completely skipped over the following point: > Two-thirds of the members fired by New York Times management since the Times Tech Guild formed have been from underrepresented groups.

this seems like it could easily be a symptom of aff action policies. Making it so firings have to be perfectly representative will discourage companies like these from taking a chance on an underrepresented candidate who might have a slightly weaker resumé if they are stuck with the decision

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

#400

Post by whimsicalism »

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?

it’s not ironic at all, usually ostensibly left organizations are most vulnerable to union pressure because of their customer base.

almost all modern places that unionize have a liberal/left-leaning customer base the company is afraid of losing

Post reply on HN