> 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?
New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike
501–510 of 1001 posts
Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike
#502Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Just cause" provisions are about an inch away from arbitrary termination, they are hardly "the other extreme."
That's really nice if that is the case. My understanding from the comments was that this prevents people who don't do their job from being fired, as long as they don't set fire to the servers or something. If I misunderstood, then the union is being nicer than they have to.
A court never reinstates anyone to their job, the company just needs to pay damages to the former employee.
Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike
#503Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike
#504Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this comment made every time by hacker news people? “I run my basement website with in my spare time? Why can’t one of the most popular websites in the world run on gum and a few paper clips”
Fair question. Having not worked at an organization like the New York Times, I really don't know. 5 people would obviously be too few, and 2,000 people would be too many. Hacker News handles a huge amount of traffic to dynamic pages with basically zero (by comparison) technical maintenance. Twitter (though not doing well as a business) was overloaded with tech employees.
If anything, the cloud to onprem migration was best and maybe only move from Elon that made sense.
Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike
#505Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I see people critique those numbers as being “too high”, or demands for additional compensation “unreasonable”, I can’t help but think those people don’t understand that $100k is very much the new $45k of the 2000s, and has much less purchasing power than the latter did at the time. Truth be told, for the present cost of living in the Northeast in general, you’re looking at a family income of $300k to be “comfor…
Just because you can't be comfortable in a used car with a fixer upper home doesn't mean other people can't be. You're talking about your preferences like they're a bare minimum and they're not. Plenty of people live perfectly comfortable lives without those luxuries.
You’re right that personal standards, subjective as they are, can make an argument highly misleading. However, you’d be careful not to make the mistaken assumption that your personal standards are the norm, either.
I’m seeing a lot of “you’re wrong, no sympathy for anyone over $100k” responses to my argument here, all of them making the same assumptions: that anyone making that much dosh must obviously be whinging about paying more for their Maserati or unable to afford rent on that high-rise condo anymore. Everyone is extrapolating some false narrative despite overwhelming evidence that even the most highly-paid among us are getting squeezed out of the housing market or struggling to make ends meet, and that’s exactly what the powers that be (people who don’t have to work to live, because they have all the money) want us to devolve into.
At the end of the day, there’s exactly two groups: those who must work to survive, and those who don’t need to due to immense wealth. Statistically speaking, you’re never going to be the latter, so you should be just as concerned about “highly paid” workers struggling to make ends meet as you are “low-skilled” workers, because we’re all workers.
Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike
#506Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Problem is that require the employer to define what an acceptable level of performance is, and that's notoriously difficult 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"
That sounds like just your experience
Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike
#507Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Problem is that require the employer to define what an acceptable level of performance is, and that's notoriously difficult 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"
But I think this is a bit of hyperbole - some kind of ongoing, documented low performance seems obviously better than just letting managers fire on a whim.
Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike
#508Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like a hiring problem, not a firing problem.
I have lots of experience hiring tech people. Most of the time they turn out to be just as good as we thought they would be. But sometimes they don't. It would be terrible if it was impossible for us to let those people go.
About half the people on this thread seem to be misreading that sentence.
It's very clear that "just cause" includes cases of low performance. So no, it's not about making it impossible to fire these people.
Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike
#509Earlier quoted context omitted.
As if only low-performing coworkers would be terminated. The total freedom of the company to terminate anyone any time for any reason or no reason is extreme, and now we are pivoting to the other extreme. Funny how that happens.
[flagged]
All of those examples you cited are drastically different types of relationships, set in very different contexts, that absolutely deserve different terms of engagement.
>Do we now hate the rich so much that we want to impose that burden on them when they pay someone
I don't even know how to parse this. We're talking about companies of a certain size. I guess we have fully stopped pretending they are anything other than an appendage of the wealthy class, and have no other responsibilities to society.
Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike
#510Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not OP, but I work in a company that is fully remote with a mix of offshore and onshore. It's possible we'd hire junior engineers locally for the offshore roles if we went fully local, but there's zero chance that we could offshore any of our existing onshore roles. This is for a few reasons: 1. Data law compliance. We can't let people outside the US see PII, which precludes them from participating fully in many supp…
For (2), this is why you are seeing more and more off-shoring from the US to South America.