471–480 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"Why would anybody trust a NYT article about internal drama at the NYT? Does HN not understand bias?" >links to a blog post from the union
Descriptions from both sides are now included, what did you want here?
> The two sides negotiated until late Sunday. The sticking points in recent days were over whether they could get a “just cause” provision in their contract, which means workers can be terminated only for misconduct or another such reason; pay increases and pay equity; and return-to-office policies. This seems like a LOT of issues that still need to be hammered out. It would be one thing if they were disagreeing abou…
Yes, heaven forbid the people doing all the work and creating all the wealth actually use their leverage against the heirs collecting NYT dividends.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> workers can be terminated only for misconduct or another such reason This is such a weird request for technology workers. You want to work with low-performing coworkers?
why are tech workers, my industry, so committed to this ideology? Do you think the tech layoffs of the last few years was a justified culling of lazy idiots?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> workers can be terminated only for misconduct or another such reason This is such a weird request for technology workers. You want to work with low-performing coworkers?
Low performance is an example of just cause. The employer simply has to prove that this was the case, and that they gave the employee notice, a chance to improve, and a reasonable standard to reach.
So instead the choices tend to drift to "fire them on the manager's whim" or "practically impossible to get rid of short of murder"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In what world should a UNION of the workers care about the COMPANY? Some unions are more powerful than companies (think UAW). They're able to negotiate terms that are bad for the long-term health of the company, and not having backgrounds in running companies, union leaders might not be thinking about that.
All companies are more powerful than individual workers (think anywhere without a union). They're able to negotiate terms that are bad for the long-term health of the human workers, and not having backgrounds in caring about people and only money, CEOs might not be thinking about that. Unions look out for workers. That's their priority. They should not cater to the business.
From the WSJ’s reporting on this: > Most employees in the tech union receive pay of more than $100,000, and average compensation, including bonus and restricted stock units, is $190,000, according to a Times spokeswoman. That figure is an average of $40,000 more than members of the Times’s journalist union, she said. > Times leaders have also bristled at the nature of some of the guild’s requests. The union previousl…
Considering the common pay for software devs thats not as high as I expect. The unscented cleaning supplies is a weird request, but it does kinda make sense and the cost should be pretty low - don't know why they removed that requirement.
I have a friend who is very sensitive to scents. She may not be able to work in a typical office again because of it. I'm very sensitive to harsh fluorescent lighting and noisy office environments and get migraines. You can push through for a while but eventually you burn out.
We've also realized we're both "mildly" autistic [1] over the last few years, along with quite a few other software engineer friends. The sensory sensitivities fall under that umbrella.
Tech has traditionally been more accepting of neurodiversity than other careers, so it's great to see a tech union raising issue like this that don't cost much but make a big difference for anyone affected.
[1] Book: Unmasking Autism by Devon Price
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The default for the US is "at-will employment", which means that your employer can fire you at any time, no reason needed. The definition of "just cause" would be collectively bargained, so both management and the union will understand and agree on what constitutes just cause or not. FWIW, layoffs are regulated differently from firings.
>The default for the US is "at-will employment", which means that your employer can fire you at any time, no reason needed. That seems... fine? In most transaction neither party needs to give "just cause" to terminate a contract. Imagine having to give documentation to move out of your current apartment, for instance. Getting fired is disruptive to someone's finances that some notice/severance would be justified, but…
> The two sides negotiated until late Sunday. The sticking points in recent days were over whether they could get a “just cause” provision in their contract, which means workers can be terminated only for misconduct or another such reason; pay increases and pay equity; and return-to-office policies. This seems like a LOT of issues that still need to be hammered out. It would be one thing if they were disagreeing abou…
> workers can be terminated only for misconduct or another such reason This is such a weird request for technology workers. You want to work with low-performing coworkers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sounds good, but in my experience bad employees were known to everyone. It was difficult to pinpoint exactly why they were bad or toxic, but pretty much everyone agreed. If you gave them some benchmark they would need to hit (e.g. close tickets, be on call, etc), they would be able to do so. So creating a documentation trail is difficult, especially if its based on people saying they don't think he does good wor…
It's like the unpopular, friendless kids in high school, you just know. And there's nothing they can do to change it.