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

501–510 of 675 posts

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

#501

Post by bad_user »

thierrydamiba wrote: post #495
bad_user wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should also be painfully obvious that, during those times, the alternative — subsistence agriculture — was much worse, and people working in factories no longer starved. The industrial revolution, AKA "greed", has ended starvation and slavery, so when socialists of late 1800s or early 1900s talk of exploitation, that should raise an eyebrow. Unions are not similar to companies because they don't compete on the fre…

Just fyi the UN estimates 25,000 people die from hunger everyday and there are currently 50 million slaves around the world. Easy to forget but these things still exist.

Yes, in the parts of the world that are still not industrialized, such as Sub-Saharan Africa.

It's also easy to forget that during 19th century, 90%+ of the population suffered from hunger and malnutrition. Right now that's around 10%, but it's less than 2.5% in the highly industrialized countries.

IMO, the parts of the world still suffering from hunger could use more "corporate greed" and industrial exploitation.

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

#502

Post by gosub100 »

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.

A lot (not prepared to say majority) of tech workers aren't programmers. If you spend your day plugging services together through standard interfaces, that's very much akin to plumbing, just without the occupational hazards.

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

#503

Post by samtheprogram »

thierrydamiba wrote: post #495
bad_user wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should also be painfully obvious that, during those times, the alternative — subsistence agriculture — was much worse, and people working in factories no longer starved. The industrial revolution, AKA "greed", has ended starvation and slavery, so when socialists of late 1800s or early 1900s talk of exploitation, that should raise an eyebrow. Unions are not similar to companies because they don't compete on the fre…

Just fyi the UN estimates 25,000 people die from hunger everyday and there are currently 50 million slaves around the world. Easy to forget but these things still exist.

That’s worldwide and vastly represented by countries that missed out on the industrial revolution or have corrupt and/or authoritarian governments, no?

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/starvatio...

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

#504

Post by smabie »

TheMagicHorsey wrote: post #480
umvi wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more like: - african americans are statistically more likely to originate from lower on socio economic ladder than, say, asian americans Thus when you get a bunch of job applicants, you might get an asian american with a Yale degree (James) and an african american with a community college degree (John). Affirmative action or other DEI pressures might force you to hire both James and John, but James will…

I don't really think a Yale degree makes you better than someone with a community college degree. There's no magic at Yale. The education you get everywhere is pretty good now because of all the resources universally available to all students. But Yale basically applies a filter function and attracts the top 0.01% of high school graduates every year (plus some less elite legacy students and DEI admits). When you hire…

Your entire comment basically talks about how a Yale degree means you probably better tho?

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

#505

Post by WalterBright »

thierrydamiba wrote: post #495
bad_user wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should also be painfully obvious that, during those times, the alternative — subsistence agriculture — was much worse, and people working in factories no longer starved. The industrial revolution, AKA "greed", has ended starvation and slavery, so when socialists of late 1800s or early 1900s talk of exploitation, that should raise an eyebrow. Unions are not similar to companies because they don't compete on the fre…

Just fyi the UN estimates 25,000 people die from hunger everyday and there are currently 50 million slaves around the world. Easy to forget but these things still exist.

Yes, in countries that are not free market countries.

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

#506

Post by Rinzler89 »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #491
Rinzler89 wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the other color of skins who are also part of the "have nots"? Are they not also affected? Why must the focus always be on the skin color instead of on the "not have" part? What's with this racism shit? You're only proving my point that I made above, that people care more about punching up against a skin color they consider have an unfair advantage due to past history, but which won't improve their situati…

Of course people with other skin color are also affected by poverty, or whatever it means to be a have-not, why wouldn't they be? I didn't say the focus must be on skin color. I'm saying to disregard why certain groups are represented in the haves/have-nots, you must ignore history. I don't believe you're arguing in good faith if you think point out that racism exists/existed, and you call that "racism shit"

I called your argument "this racism shit" since you're trying to argue how some people today are poor because of events from 150 years ago and not do to their own actions or inactions. That would be like me blaming my lack of financial success in life on the Ottoman empire's occupation of my country.

How about personal responsibility? How can you blame people you've never met and who are long dead for why you're poor today.

Why is it that Iranians, Indians, Taiwanese, Chinese, and other Asians who emigrate to the US with little to no money can become very successful within 1-2 generations despite being poor foreign immigrants while a certain minority of the US citizens who enjoy rights and benefits immigrants do not seem to be stuck in poverty/crime and keep blaming history for it? Is it because some cultures value education highly while a US minority does not?

It's not your fault you are born into poverty but it's your responsibility to do your best to get out of it. Who is stopping that minority group from going to school/college or trades to escape poverty?

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

#507

Post by WalterBright »

fatbird wrote: post #499
bad_user wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should also be painfully obvious that, during those times, the alternative — subsistence agriculture — was much worse, and people working in factories no longer starved. The industrial revolution, AKA "greed", has ended starvation and slavery, so when socialists of late 1800s or early 1900s talk of exploitation, that should raise an eyebrow. Unions are not similar to companies because they don't compete on the fre…

Whether state-funded institutions and unions are more corrupt than private enterprise is an empirical question. Do you have empirical data to back this up?

Biden's $7.5 billion investment in EV charging has only produced 7 stations in two years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2024/03/28/...

I've never heard of a private company that inept and corrupt.

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

#508

Post by WalterBright »

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?

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

Such statistics are meaningless without more context. For example, are women over-represented in entry level positions? Do they work the same hours? the same overtime? And so forth.

Articles that present such statistics are pushing propaganda.

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

#509

Post by gaws »

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.

> we are tradespeople

Programmers are not "tradespeople." What an insane claim.

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

#510

Post by cma »

bad_user wrote: post #487
umvi wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read books from the early 1900s (Radium Girls, Rocket Boys, Seabiscuit), it's painfully obvious to see how incredibly exploitative industries can become (literally working people to death) without something like a union to check corporate greed against worker well-being. It's a fine balance though. Unions are organizations very similar to companies and can fall victim to the same sins as exploitative companies…

It should also be painfully obvious that, during those times, the alternative — subsistence agriculture — was much worse, and people working in factories no longer starved. The industrial revolution, AKA "greed", has ended starvation and slavery, so when socialists of late 1800s or early 1900s talk of exploitation, that should raise an eyebrow. Unions are not similar to companies because they don't compete on the fre…

> Unions are not similar to companies because they don't compete on the free market. For this reason, much like all state-funded institutions, unions are much more prone to corruption.

The government has intricate voting protections for organized capital: oversight of the voting process with minority shareholder rights, stringent rules for the board and corporate governance, allowed cross-company collusion through mergers with very little checks, especially if the merger crosses industry lines. And they get extreme protection from liabilities for damages they cause.

For organized labor there is little in right-to-work states: "minority" voter rights that say anyone can defect from the majority, in many right to work states the majority can't even freely negotiate a contract that says new hires will be bound to the voting process (each new hire can defect), most of the voting rules there just make things almost impossible to organize as a whole rather than protecting the equivalent minority stakeholders, and collusion between unions isn't possible in the same way due to federal laws making secondary strikes illegal.

Organized capital gets a great structure to collaborate together that would be illegal if they were owners of separate businesses, workers get forcefully atomized even if they try and set up the organization through a freely negotiated contract (due to freely negotiated contracts not being able to set terms for new hires, through the outlawing of "Union Security Agreements" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_security_agreement). So things like dues don't have to be paid by new hires but the get the protections, then the collective action free-rider problem takes over and eventually dues for funding things like support during strikes dries up.

Imagine if new shareholders who bought some shares through an existing holder didn't have to be bound by the share-majority vote and could just sandbag mergers etc. by not agreeing to go through with it for their portion of the shares and they couldn't be forced to through the normal state collective action enforcement mechanisms that shareholders today all enjoy.

Post reply on HN