New York Times tech workers union votes to authorize a strike

Post by nonethewiser » Thu, Sep 12, 2024, 1:19 AM UTC

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.

Post by nonethewiser » Thu, Sep 12, 2024, 1:24 AM UTC

andai wrote: post #424

Workaccount2 wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we look at past times these things are brought up; almost certainly not. Often things like part-time vs. full time aren't considered or amount of overtime hours worked (for hourly jobs).

The reasoning I heard is that it's explained by differences in personality across the two populations. One group is, on average, more assertive, and as a result more likely to negotiate higher salary.

Post by darby_nine » Thu, Sep 12, 2024, 1:52 AM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #473

darby_nine wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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,…

Yeah I didn't phrase it very well, what I meant was that you're not applying for any old job on the tech team. You apply for a specific job, presumably one you're qualified for that would be a step up in your career. If you look at a very small sample of people and one racial minority or gender has all the "lower" jobs, that doesn't tell you what jobs they were "offered" it just tells you what jobs they applied for.

Post by tomcam » Thu, Sep 12, 2024, 2:23 AM UTC

kennywinker wrote: post #604

tomcam wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you tell me where I claimed capitalism works perfectly for everybody?

So your justification for unions being bad is “capitalism works for some people”? So does a monarchy. So does fascism. I’m not even arguing against capitalism here - just for more worker power in a capitalist system.

    I subscribe to the Times and am not anti-union.

Post by mtalantikite » Thu, Sep 12, 2024, 3:51 AM UTC

dgfitz wrote: post #583

sudosysgen wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am saying that the media was enamored with her because she represented a shift rightwards compared to her predecessors, and that her campaign successfully shifted the leftmost acceptable economic policies to be to the right of the electorate. In that the media vastly prefered her over Trump, it was because she was pro-establishment and better aligned with corporate interests, not because she was economically to his…

> … her campaign successfully shifted the leftmost acceptable economic policies to be to the right of the electorate. Huh. If that were true she would have won. So it can’t be true. Unless your claim is “the right was too far right” in which case your “right-of-the-electorate” cannot be mathematically true. Were you trying to make a different point? The current one doesn’t hold water.