Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 1001 posts

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#481

Post by ElevenLathe »

gruez wrote: post #328
dfxm12 wrote: post #79

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…

I'm sure the paper feels it's excessive too. The union doesn't. They've already failed to work this out without a strike, so the question now is who can suffer the longest before the other breaks, or is willing to give some other concession in return for getting their way on this issue.

In other words, one side will win, or both will compromise. It's just another contract negotiation, like any other between two parties. Unions are allowed to do it with businesses, just like businesses are allowed to do it among themselves. This is literally the ruling ideology of the West and has been for generations, but somehow when a union takes advantage of it, that's radical marxism.

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#482

Post by Xelynega »

wg0 wrote: post #215
ponector wrote: post #194

I totally support their demand for remote work. NY Times should hire more remote! They could save a lot by hiring offshore without hassle of providing benefits or fighting unions.

Can't get this fetish with on premise work when the code you write is on your machine, the systems you deploy to are in a data centre you don't know the exact location of. If Linux kernel can be developed remotely spanning over several architectures and huge number of mission critical subsystems, surely your systems having blog posts, comments and such can work as well and if not, you have failed to articulate exactl…

But the managers don't feel as important at the end of the day.

Didn't you think about them?

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#483

Post by eloisant »

legitster wrote: post #459
stickfigure wrote: post #342

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?

It's particularly an awful request to pair with remote work. "I should be able to work anywhere so long as it doesn't affect my performance..." "Also don't judge me based on performance". I think people need to be honest that WFH is as an argument is tightly integrated with merit.

I don't see the link. Does working in office means you're allowed to do a crappy job?

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#484

Post by dialup_sounds »

School-Cotton wrote: post #225
nemesis17 wrote: post #68

With the shit show that the current tech industry has turned into, unionization is crucial. US has a very low percentage of unionized workers compared to Iceland, Finland and Scandinavian countries for instance. Time to change and make our voice heard.

In what way do you think the current tech industry has turned into a shit show?

There's a lot of companies now that expect you to leave the house and go work around other people. Like, what the hell?

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#485

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

lallysingh wrote: post #450
gruez wrote: post #444

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?

A third party not directly invested in the outcome?

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#486

Post by gojomo »

ForHackernews wrote: post #466
csallen wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that extreme? If you own a company, why shouldn't you be able to fire someone at any time? If you work a job, why shouldn't you be able to quit at any time? I don't think it's great that our society tries to treat work like it's family, and jobs like they're some guaranteed long-term relationship. It sets people up with the wrong expectations. Your company will lay you off or fire you once they run out of mone…

You're asking why it's bad that your owners can take away your livelihood on a whim without any reason?

Can an employee quit on a whim without any reason, taking vital functions away from the productive team on which they served?

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#487

Post by Vaslo »

quandrum wrote: post #408
stickfigure wrote: post #342

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?

No, I want management to develop a system to determine who is low-performing, document when those workers don't meet the standards of performance, and reference those documents when they fire someone. It's just asking for due process.

Due process from a union definition is often ridiculous and protects the members beyond what a reasonable customer/employer should expect.

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#488

Post by itake »

legitster wrote: post #345
cool_dude85 wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's crappy about the union striking when they have leverage? Should they have waited until the strike would apply less pressure to their employer?

1: If a union strikes when it has too much leverage, there's a risk there as well at overplaying the hand. If the Times does just fine during the election, then the union helps make the case their members are overrated. If the Times crashes and burns during the election, they might make the value of the contract weaker. 2: In an election where trust and reliability of independent media are really being called into qu…

Does SWE striking even mean anything to a company? If factory workers don't show up, no products are made. If a SWE doesn't show up, the website is just fine (see elon buys twitter).

SWE impact is measured in quarters or years, especially at a big company that doesn't have public deadlines for project delivery.

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#489

Post by bell-cot »

bloomingkales wrote: post #387
yoyohello13 wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull. That’s leverage. Striking during a time when the business doesn’t care is a dumb move.

Let me correct you, this will be election month at minimum. The NYT kind of brings this kind of heat on itself because it has shifted from being just the paper of record over to an institution to the current definition of progressivism. You can only really do this union kinda stuff against self-important institutions. Which developer is ever going to attempt this on Accenture? They are straight up and honest about th…

> The Times adorned itself as something more...

+/- your buy-in on that image. Pete's Pizza Parlor also adorns itself - as being on a mission to serve up piping hot pizza pies.

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#490

Post by pydry »

legitster wrote: post #345
cool_dude85 wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's crappy about the union striking when they have leverage? Should they have waited until the strike would apply less pressure to their employer?

1: If a union strikes when it has too much leverage, there's a risk there as well at overplaying the hand. If the Times does just fine during the election, then the union helps make the case their members are overrated. If the Times crashes and burns during the election, they might make the value of the contract weaker. 2: In an election where trust and reliability of independent media are really being called into qu…

>If a union strikes when it has too much leverage, there's a risk there as well at overplaying the hand.

You might need to take some lessons in negotiating.

Post reply on HN