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

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#811

Post by Lonestar1440 »

Spivak wrote: post #781
ceejayoz wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whoever made this claim, did they control for other factors, like job title/level or productivity? You get that "all the black people are in lower roles or somehow all deemed less productive" is worse, right?

Jesus christ thank you, folks on the internet are so quick to dismiss pay gaps just because we know what causes them as if that magically makes it not a problem. Take one factor, women earn less because of mid-career halts due to having children, like the father didn't also have a child . Women bear the brunt because we're expected to be the primary caregivers, and this hurts men too due to the "father babysitting hi…

What if Women, on average, prefer to take more time away from work due to having a child than their male partners? And what if "Black" people are, on average, younger than other groups and so are more likely to be in early-career roles?

More broadly, once we start dividing "People" up into groups like "Black" "White" "Man" "Woman"; isn't a bit silly to think the groups won't expect and want and do different things? Like even if we assign people literally at random (and 'Race' isn't much different than this); wouldn't differences emerge?

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#812

Post by flappyeagle »

downrightmike wrote: post #714

Regarding RTO: https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/4747313-remote-work-b... The research backs up all the good things that have come out of remote working since at least the pandemic started. Everything is great, employees do better work and the employer gets better work done. Which was never in doubt if you look at research and metrics. The kerfuffle about remote being bad only has the stated negative of somethin…

Are Indians less deserving of jobs? What are you trying to say

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#813

Post by wiseowise »

reaperducer wrote: post #252
dartos wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 2nd quote is kind of funny, but the first one isn’t. Tech generates more money than the Times. It makes sense that the employees should be paid to reflect that. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with high paid workers striking for even higher pay. It’s not like the suits don’t hoard bonuses for themselves.

Tech generates more money than the Times. It's the journalists that create the content for the tech end. Without them, there would be no Times tech employees.

Without office and cleaners there would be no Times.

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#814

Post by zmgsabst »

Spivak wrote: post #781
ceejayoz wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whoever made this claim, did they control for other factors, like job title/level or productivity? You get that "all the black people are in lower roles or somehow all deemed less productive" is worse, right?

Jesus christ thank you, folks on the internet are so quick to dismiss pay gaps just because we know what causes them as if that magically makes it not a problem. Take one factor, women earn less because of mid-career halts due to having children, like the father didn't also have a child . Women bear the brunt because we're expected to be the primary caregivers, and this hurts men too due to the "father babysitting hi…

> You can say this isn't a problem for her employer to solve but as long as we have no intention of upsetting the standard nuclear family gender roles men and women taking the default life path shouldn't consistently make one worse off than the other.

Yes it should — if they’re making choices at a different rate.

That is, if men who take similar time off experience similar hardship and it simply happens to be that women prefer to stay home with the kids more often, there is literally no problem.

We don’t need to “fix” biology to fit our ideology: that’s backwards.

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#815

Post by spandrew »

I love all the bellyaching about the NYT missing that election coverage money. Perfect time to go on strike. They're only asking for a 2.5% salary increase YoY (which is very inflation-y) and some WFH days. That's a pretty mild ask.

NYT will be signing on the dotted line within a week I believe given the risk to their revenue if they don't cover the second Trump-vs-Kamala. The section vs-Woman-Candidate election in a decade is going to get a lot of eyeballs.

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#816

Post by lxgr »

dangerwill wrote: post #789
lxgr wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did he actually say that? Because in the article, there's only a tweet of him saying that Perplexity is "on standby to help", of which "offering to replace striking staff with AI" seems a pretty strong mischaracterization. Update: The headline (but not the URL) was just changed to "Perplexity CEO offers AI company’s services to replace striking NYT staff" (emphasis mine).

You are either being wilfully ignorant or don't know how strikes work. Offering to "help" during a strike is scabbing by definition

I'm not disagreeing with that assertion at all: He's clearly offering them something to sabotage the strike.

I'm just pointing out that "offering to help" does equal "offering to help with AI". Sure, it's somewhat heavily implied by context, but journalistic integrity means making it clear what's an implication and what somebody actually said.

TechCrunch even seems to agree: They changed the headline retroactively.

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#817

Post by immibis »

avazhi wrote: post #492
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.)

> It's a fairly pro-business paper, certainly not very critical of Israel Sorry, are we both talking about the New York Times in 2024 here? Not a day goes by that there isn’t an article crying about Palestinians and bashing Israel - there’s one right now, just scroll down to the section just above sports. Calling it the preeminent progressive institution in America media today is axiomatic.

The NYT is most definitely pro-Israel - so much that after October 7, it made up[1] a story of mass rape[2] to justify the attacks on Gaza. Just because it's not as pro-Israel as you doesn't mean it's not pro-Israel.

[1] https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schw...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-at...

This comment will be deleted by moderators, though, just like every other comment which points this out. Yet no moderator has ever mentioned why they are doing that. It's factual and relevant to the discussion.

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#818

Post by mandolingual »

derektank wrote: post #803
__loam wrote: post #797

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crossing the picket line like this is craven and opportunistic.

Pretty opportunistic to strike right before what is likely one of the highest traffic days for the NYT all year too

Yes, workers will take advantage of opportunities for their strike action to be more effective, good point.

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#819

Post by immibis »

abletonlive wrote: post #557
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.)

I like the implication that being "trans-skeptical" is "non-progressive" and therefore to be a progressive you have to buy into the ideology without questioning anything. That does align with my current views of where progressive ideology is headed

"skeptical" is in most cases just a euphemism for "opposed".

Re: New York Times Tech Guild goes on strike

#820

Post by doctorpangloss »

slt2021 wrote: post #735
crazygringo wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you so much! That is a vastly more informative article. It seems like it's not so much the NYT is opposed to the contract's specifics -- they're opposed to having a contract at all because the union is new. The NYT has been stringing the union along without ever actually signing anything, so now the union has to strike to get the NYT to take them seriously. Key parts: > The Tech Guild won its unionization vote…

>>According to the study, Black tech workers at the newspaper make 26 percent less than white workers >>women, who make up over 40 percent of the Tech Guild, earn 12 percent less on average than men claims like these always irk me, like did you just compare averages by race/gender? Whoever made this claim, did they control for other factors, like job title/level or productivity? its like the famous "gender pay gap" c…

If you feel so strongly about it, become a Union rep and advocate for whatever you see fit.
Post reply on HN