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

441–450 of 675 posts

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

#441

Post by darby_nine »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #384
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?

If we look at past times these things are brought up; almost certainly not. Often things like part-time vs. full time aren't considered or amount of overtime hours worked (for hourly jobs).

This kind of thing is impossible to control for, though. How can you tell whether someone's success or lackthereof (including via degree of responsibility) comes from earnest evaluation of merit or social bias? I have a difficulty imagining trusting any kind of confident assessment of the bias at hand.

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

#442

Post by advisedwang »

intelVISA wrote: post #281
tqi wrote: post #97

> Kathy Zhang, a senior analytics manager with The Times and the guild's unit chair, said, "Management has really dragged its feet when it comes to bargaining," between the union formation and now. Maybe tangential, but I would have guessed people managers were not eligible to be a member of the union. Does anyone know how eligibility is determined?

If you don't have significant ownership of the company you're a worker, no?

The NLRA doesn't protect "supervisors", which is mostly anyone who can hire/fire/discipline/etc. They technically are still able to unionize, but there is literally nothing stopping a company firing them for it.

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

#443

Post by darby_nine »

andai wrote: post #424
Workaccount2 wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we look at past times these things are brought up; almost certainly not. Often things like part-time vs. full time aren't considered or amount of overtime hours worked (for hourly jobs).

The reasoning I heard is that it's explained by differences in personality across the two populations. One group is, on average, more assertive, and as a result more likely to negotiate higher salary.

This explanation hold less and less water as corporations switch more firmly to tiered compensation tied directly to title.

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

#445

Post by not_wyoming »

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?

This line of questioning is often brought up in response to pay gap conversations. Universal trends do not explain individual data points, but in general, studies do seem to indicate that pay gaps are real.

https://www.epi.org/publication/what-is-the-gender-pay-gap-a...

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/07/01/racial-ge...

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/women-of-color-and-...

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

#446

Post by darby_nine »

pc86 wrote: post #389
ryandrake wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If not, then that's also an equity problem. If the "dog jobs" are mostly offered to women and minorities, that should also be called out as a problem for employers to solve.

This presupposes a lot of pretty nasty things. It reads like you apply to the NYT and then you get offered a job based on your gender or race which is obviously not the case. That lack of equity (which is equality of outcome, not opportunity) is itself a problem and not simply a byproduct of different people being different. That when your entire sample size is 622, you can make broad generalizations based on the pay…

> It reads like you apply to the NYT and then you get offered a job based on your gender or race which is obviously not the case.

Obviously? A newspaper is exactly the kind of business to hire based on your personal narrative (including 100% of protected class intersections). That's the entire point of the opinion column. Granted, I don't think that the folks being discussed here are publishing any personal opinions, and I doubt the times is doing anything legally actionable or we would have heard about it, but the idea that they don't consider these factors just because it's illegal is laughable.

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

#447

Post by PeterZaitsev »

sensanaty wrote: post #440
ipaddr wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lower salaries and treating everyone like a cog.

You think joining a union makes you a cog? Have the mass layoffs every single year taught people nothing? Newsflash, every company treats every single one of their employees as another replaceable cog in the machine. Even if you're the supreme grand wizard of space time and SQL at your FAANG job, you are still fully replaceable and will be if the business sees it as profitable to do so. For now SWEs have it good, but…

If you do not like working for a business, remember you have an option to start a business

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

#448

Post by ipaddr »

twojobsoneboss wrote: post #386
ipaddr wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lower salaries and treating everyone like a cog.

Tech salaries have ALREADY fallen and tech workers have already been largely treated as cogs. Yes it could get even worse but I get why they’re taking their chances

It would codify this even further. Salaries have fallen but under a union any raises will be slow and require strikes and other job action and not be based on individual performance but on time served. Once time served is in play it doesn't make sense to switch jobs because you start the bottom.

It's true playing companies off each other isn't possible anymore. Switching jobs use to be a formula for a high rate.

But switching roles allowed people to grow and work on new and different tech. Leaving toxic situations was possible. Under the New York times union model you need to suck up the toxic environment.

The other issue is skills rot. The longer you stay in the same role the more the rot grows. At some point you can't find another role so you have to setup silos and protect the system you are working under from change. If someone tries to move your crystal report to power bi you've got to out politically muscle the request or you will be fired. The union may step in and protect you but can't forever.

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

#449

Post by darby_nine »

loeg wrote: post #427
dwallin wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The statistic, just like the other ones, doesn't tell you whether these firings were reasonable or not.

Our labor laws are so weak in this country this is nearly impossible to determine unless someone fucked up.

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

#450

Post by BurningFrog »

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.

Note that a majority of the employees can easily be from underrepresented groups.
Post reply on HN