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

91–100 of 675 posts

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

#91

Post by toomuchtodo »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #83
paxys wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So then nothing done by anyone throughout history can ever be considered exploitative because you can go back and point to a slightly older period in history?

[flagged]

> So as long as the level of exploitation decreases

This Is America, so we have a long way to go in this regard. Attempting to denigrate this specific example of workers flexing their rights is anti worker rhetoric, plain and simple. Arguing over coffee is bikeshedding. If you as a worker don't have a union, you have no protections from an org, its management, and shareholders. If one does not support them, that's fine, support of the minority is not needed. Popular support for unions continues to be high (historically) @ ~70%, so Labor Mode continues.

There is no other solution to the brutalist US labor market, from first principles.

https://thehill.com/business/4854173-union-approval-surges-p...

https://news.gallup.com/poll/12751/labor-unions.aspx

https://striketracker.ilr.cornell.edu/

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

#93

Post by glimshe »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #75
seneca wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word "exploit" has no meaning at all if you can stretch it so far as to cover NYC tech employees.

[flagged]

I'm not familiar with regulations on strikes, if any. That aside, you don't need to be exploited to have a moral reason to go on strike. A strike is roughly equivalent to a mass layoff, but from the employee side. We hear often how employers can let people go "for no reason, at any time", so the same should apply to employees. Employees can "let go" of the employer for no reason, at any time, and agree or not to "rehire" the employer "at will".

Please note that I'm not supporting or criticizing this particular strike. I'm just saying that if we understand unions (at least voluntary ones) as a way to increase employees' bargaining power, they should be able to engage in cutthroat, "Greed is good" negotiation under free markets; all they need is to feel that they can get more, irrespective of what they have.

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

#94

Post by paxys »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #89
paxys wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the strike about free coffee?

In a future where the world keeps getting better, would it be fair that "exploitative" could fall to such a weak use? By your logic, that would be acceptable.

Yes not offering workers coffee could be considered exploitative in a hypothetical future, same as how not giving workers water and bathroom breaks and overtime pay is considered exploitative today while it was perfectly acceptable a few generations ago (and still is in plenty of cultures/jurisdictions).

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

#95

Post by pavel_lishin »

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #89
paxys wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the strike about free coffee?

In a future where the world keeps getting better, would it be fair that "exploitative" could fall to such a weak use? By your logic, that would be acceptable.

In a Star Trek future, yes, refusing to allow a class of employee free use of the replicator would be considered exploitative. Why not?

But instead of worrying about some far-off Magic Wish-Fulfillment Future, we could be discussing how they're actually be exploited now.

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

#96

Post by strict9 »

ThinkBeat wrote: post #11

This is a great time for it, with the election on and the millions running into the pocket of mass media. NYT should be highly motivated to negotiate a deal as soon as possible.

Absolutely. This is the worst job market for tech workers in probably 20 years. Many employed in tech are hoping to keep their job, let alone bargain for higher wages and remote work.

Hard to imagine this effort having as much leverage if it were to happen after the election.

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

#97

Post by tqi »

> Kathy Zhang, a senior analytics manager with The Times and the guild's unit chair, said, "Management has really dragged its feet when it comes to bargaining," between the union formation and now.

Maybe tangential, but I would have guessed people managers were not eligible to be a member of the union. Does anyone know how eligibility is determined?

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

#100

Post by Jcampuzano2 »

mbrumlow wrote: post #72
hungie wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the list of things I posted they have to do to ship their product? It's non trivial because those are hard problems and their space is large. It should be that complex because it is that complex.

No. I did not read your comment until now. Not sure how I replied to it. But anyways much of what you are listing is just more stuff that sounds complex or is not needed. It exist because there was money and it was a big bloated organization. It’s not needed to run the core business and frankly the cost of those things are still small. The number of users don’t change their engineering cost, or at least should not. T…

So is what you're arguing really that because its complex it shouldn't be done? So Netflix should never have been developed, because it wasn't needed and is very complex to run. You could already get videos at your local video store anyway.

And how are you deciding what is or is not needed. You're basically saying the company should never innovate or try anything new outside of their existing core business, and should minimize their chances for monetization in new verticals which basically no corporation would ever do. They're always looking for other sources of monetization since thats what investors want.

Post reply on HN