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

681–690 of 1001 posts

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#681

Post by mmooss »

repeekad wrote: post #473
code_for_monkey wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why are tech workers, my industry, so committed to this ideology? Do you think the tech layoffs of the last few years was a justified culling of lazy idiots?

I think almost by definition a layoff is to remove redundant/bottom performers to keep the machine clean and lean, that’s capitalism for ya

The reason given is usually to cut costs, because the company claims to lack the cashflow or income to pay them. If the company can't afford it or doesn't believe they need it, they cut meat and bone and not just fat.

Look at the news organizations laying off reporters in large numbers. The news organizations' product suffers considerably.

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#682

Post by drawkward »

Nimitz14 wrote: post #676
drawkward wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the current definition of progressivism It's a fairly pro-business paper, certainly not very critical of Israel, and you appear to have completely missed all of its somewhat trans-skeptical reporting and opinion. (The latter pervasive enough to rankle many of its own employees about the tone and tenor of NYT coverage of trans issues.)

This is a controversial statement. To pretend that the NYT has not changed is dishonest: https://www.economist.com/1843/2023/12/14/when-the-new-york-...

The NYT literally published an Op-Ed in which an American senator called for sending american troops to quell BLM protests.

So progressive!

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#683

Post by gitfan86 »

jjcm wrote: post #609

For reference, here's a current job opening for NYT's tech org for a senior software developer: https://boards.greenhouse.io/thenewyorktimes/jobs/4472655005 Salary is 140-155k USD. For reference, here's levels.fyi's breakdown of the New York city area: https://www.levels.fyi/t/software-engineer/locations/new-yor... Median total comp is 185k. It seems like their total comp for NYT is slightly above the mark based on r…

The concerns are not around excessive pay but future demands related to seniority. 170k sounds reasonable today, but when you add in a yearly 5% pay raise AND inflation adjustments AND overtime and sick time and retirement contributions it adds up to be a lot.

For example there was a cop in Massachusetts who had "retired" twice and was getting 280k/year due to the way the union rules were set up.

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#684

Post by TylerE »

marcinzm wrote: post #619
insane_dreamer wrote: post #161

Have devs at any of the large tech companies ever tried to unionize? If not, why not?

Historically big tech provided amazing compensation and benefits compared to everyone except some finance companies. Why unionize and potentially risk a very good thing? For context, the NY Times does not provide amazing compensation or benefits.

Maybe in the bay area. My experience elsewhere is that both are sliding much more towards white collar norms. As more and more people fall under the “tech” umbrella I expect those trends to accelerate.

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#685

Post by 9x39 »

drawkward wrote: post #393
VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It would be terrible for businesses to fire people arbitrarily. I'd rather give more rights to individuals than to businesses, because I am biased in an anti-business way: businesses arent bounded by human lifespans or biological constraints, get preferential treatment by the American legal system, have orders of magnitude more money and political power than individuals. It's almost like the USA fought a war and char…

Would it be terrible if employees could fire their employers arbitrarily?

Both parties have freedom in this arrangement, but we can find examples of both employees and employers with weak negotiating positions. I don't think that invalidates the benefits of freedoms of association.

To your point about business being bound by constraints, they absolutely are bound by the niche they operate in. As markets change, world events unfold, competitors appear, decisions are made, companies can struggle and fail, yet are typically unable to pivot.

Consider a company that makes ICE cars that can't follow the market into making EVs. Or a company that has never had competition might be in the stranglehold of "this is the way we've always done it" when a fierce competitor emerges, and won't adapt.

True, most employees typically don't have equity (so they don't share in all the upside), but they also aren't married to the company when it looks like a supertanker headed for an inevitable collision with a bridge (getting wiped out on the downside).

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#686

Post by HDThoreaun »

lc9er wrote: post #571
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?

Most of the anti-union tech workers I've encountered over my career have vastly overestimated their abilities and value to the workforce. Their willingness to suffer abuse from employers (while taking pride in their refusal to establish boundaries) makes working conditions worse for all of us.

Most of the pro-union tech workers I know have never been forced to join a corrupt union that does nothing to help them while keeping the good old boys who contribute little to the company employed. Many tech workers are paid in stock so theres tons of incentive to get rid of low performers.

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#687

Post by [deleted] »

feedforward wrote: post #528
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?

When the wealth created by those who work at the New York Times is sent out in dividends to those who do no work or create wealth there, what is performance of these rentiers? You're arguing on the side of the rentiers and parasites who do not work, and lecturing about "low performance". It's the people doing the work's purview to discuss performance, not the parasites.

[deleted]

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#688

Post by araes »

ramblenode wrote: post #637
quandrum wrote: post #408

Earlier 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.

> No, I want management to develop a system to determine who is low-performing The system here is going to be something like LoC or tickets answered, things that are objective and easy to measure. We know these don't reflect real productivity, but because they are objective, that's what will be used in promotion and firing decisions. Anything subjective, even if it's the opinions of peers or experts, will be contesta…

> We know these don't reflect real productivity

Mild issue with this. Mostly, cause it's a one size fits all. There's a certain kind of productivity worker that actually responds relatively well to that type of metric. That vagueness results in stagnation and analysis paralysis.

Those workers tend to actually respond better to what the game community almost considers the grind mindset. Give us a well defined hallway, with well defined tasks, and then we'll walk down the well defined hallway. It may not be "super creative" productivity, yet it's a "form" or "type" of productivity.

Part of the issue also, is a lot of the time, people seem to always want to be the Einstein of the company, and nobody really wants to deal with the day-to-day shit. It's simply not status enough, or management visible enough, or high-level content enough, or similar.

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#689

Post by miltonlost »

tqi wrote: post #668
miltonlost wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Dismissing any form of dissent as purely the result of propaganda is not a good way to bring people to your side. > In what world should a UNION of the workers care about the COMPANY? Maybe if the workers in the union partly owned the company. For one, a meaningful amount of tech worker compensation comes in the form of company stock. For another, I would argue that anyone who wants to stay in their job long term sho…

I'm not dismissing ANY form of dissent. I'm dismissing the "unions mostly cater to the mediocre employees" as propaganda which ignores the universal benefits a union gives to all employees, mediocre and superstar alike. Benefits that would either not be guaranteed without a negotiated contract or would be hard to have conceded on an individual basis.

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#690

Post by asdasdsddd »

code_for_monkey wrote: post #675
asdasdsddd wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes mostly, i worked with many lazy idiots, who undeservedly made millions while our clients and customers suffered

what do you think their opinions of you were?

a junior who was dumb enough to actually do work
Post reply on HN