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

571–580 of 675 posts

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

#571

Post by keeganpoppen »

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…

i'm guessing this comment won't be popular, but i defy any downvoter to explain what part of it is wrong, much less downvote worthy. are we really gonna stick our heads in the sand and pretend like unions aren't (1) famous hotbeds of corruption (not the only one in society by any stretch, but let's be honest) (2) artificial scarcity of labor supply-- guess who that benefits? those specific workers... at the expense of literally everyone else in society! is that ok? probably / it depends / who knows. but it is true. why do you think going to the doctor is so expensive? well, lots of reason, but artificial scarcity is a huuuge one (3) the source of all kinds of asinine rules and regulations that are actually really annoying to deal with if you're trying to do stuff. like having to pay a "union guy" if you want to have any sort of nontrivially elaborate display at a convention, etc.

i get why people have this kneejerk reaction about "union good" because it is good... for the union members... and having a middle class in society is definitely good. aesthetically, at least-- i couldn't really tell you why from first principles, but it does just seem better, intuitively. but just because we all hate "capitalism" now doesn't mean we should forget that shit being so cheap on amazon is actually a good we all can enjoy, including guild-i-mean-union members!

it's sad that i feel the need to point out that i am pro-labor (whatever that means), pro-the-little-guys, fuck billionaires, etc. because i dared say anything negative about a protected class... that's just a fact of life in the 2020s i guess... i just think this stuff is all WAY more subtle than people give it credit for, and that is part of what gives bad actors carte blanche to... act badly... and that is something everyone should be against, no matter how red their favorite book is.

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

#572

Post by keeganpoppen »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #551
WalterBright wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[flagged]

did they commit thought crime or something? any even semi-competent statistician would have these questions, and any semi-competent journalist would question numbers being produced by an organization that are being used to promulgate that organization's agenda. and, moreover, we both know that the likelihood that these numbers actually properly control for these things is essentially 0. the sad thing is that if they did actually do the right thing, the numbers would be not as fair, but much more heinous and actionable. as it is there is absolutely no conclusion to draw for anyone involved-- how is the NYT supposed to fix the policy when they cannot even divine whether it's an underpromotion problem vs a recruiting problem vs an outright racism problem? isn't the goal to get them to fix things? the fixes for those three things are DRAMATICALLY different from one another.

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

#573

Post by AngryData »

umvi wrote: post #475
ncr100 wrote: post #459

Awesome news. In my experience, Mismanagement, both in personnel and compensation, seems to be commonplace, as corporations seek to lower costs in response to our changing economy. Corporations looking to find an advantage may shortchange employees, overwork them, and not train managers but rather expect everybody to "just work well together", deflecting responsibility. Unionizing provides a relief valve where unions…

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…

Part of the problem with unions is still due to anti-union laws which effectively locks existing unions into place and not allowing members to be like "Nah fuck yall, ill make my own union without you corrupt cats in charge."

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

#574

Post by keeganpoppen »

darby_nine wrote: post #446
pc86 wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

man the downvotes on this thread are all over the place-- people need to take a long, hard look in the mirror about what discourse they actually tolerate, vs what they tell themselves... it's absurd. at best this comment is mildly combative, but it doesn't seem like OP took it personally, as they shouldn't have, but yet... downvote city. it's especially bizarre because i couldn't even tell you what ideological trigger shibboleth is being triggered here, even...

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

#575

Post by Manuel_D »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #551
WalterBright wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[flagged]

The above commenter is asking for relevant facts. If Job A pays more than Job B and there's a larger proportion of men in Job A then men's average pay will be higher, but both genders are receiving equal pay for equal work.

If anything, your allegations of sealioning are violating HN's guideline "Assume good faith."

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

#576

Post by antifa »

Alupis wrote: post #565
berniedurfee wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

| post-colonial intervention

I'll ask again. What is stopping these countries today ? Handwavy, vague "post-colonial" whatever isn't a reason, it's an excuse.

The CIA prefers puppet states over independent states.

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

#577

Post by Izkata »

mc32 wrote: post #113
klyrs wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand I have recently seen George W. Bush being described as a progressive because he wouldn't say who he's voting for. Left/right determination seems to be made purely on loyalty to a single individual in today's US politics. So if that's where we're at, NYT is liberal because it won't endorse Trump. That's fine, but let's just say that. In the world outside of petty dictatorships, though, left/right det…

The neocon thing is weird. Bernie and others used to compare Cheney with pretty unsavory characters in history, but now he’s lauded by progressives. This shit is getting weird. Some weird realignment is happening where former enemies are bedfellows now with a new enemy. In very loose terms, Republicans are subverting previous Democratic issues and the Democrats are subverting previous neocon issues. The Dems now get…

> Some weird realignment is happening where former enemies are bedfellows now with a new enemy. In very loose terms, Republicans are subverting previous Democratic issues and the Democrats are subverting previous neocon issues. The Dems now get most of “big money”, new Republicans are now the populists. Broad strokes of course, but that’s how it’s shaping up.

People underestimated how many Bernie Sanders supporters switched to Trump when he dropped out in the 2016 election. Some of us have been seeing this realignment coming for that long.

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

#578

Post by Manuel_D »

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.

Most tradespeople are not unionized. Even the most highly unionzed trade - electricians - are only 1/3rd unionized. The most unionized jobs are not tradespeople, they're teachers and police officers. https://smartestdollar.com/research/the-most-unionized-occup...

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

#579

Post by missedthecue »

WalterBright wrote: post #508
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?

> 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.

I've always wondered why companies don't overhire women to save on labor costs.

The only explanations I can rationalize is that management isnt aware of the pay difference, or they are aware but they're more sexist than they are greedy.

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

#580

Post by Manuel_D »

missedthecue wrote: post #579
WalterBright wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I've always wondered why companies don't overhire women to save on labor costs. The only explanations I can rationalize is that management isnt aware of the pay difference, or they are aware but they're more sexist than they are greedy.

Because the reality is that when you adjust for type of job, experience, and hours worked the wage disparity effectively disappears: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/08/01/are-wome...
Post reply on HN