7 ms·

They are in a bad situation, but isn’t the problem exactly what you said? Too many people vying for these jobs? What incentive do publishers have to pay better,

by tomcam 4y ago

They are in a bad situation, but isn’t the problem exactly what you said? Too many people vying for these jobs? What incentive do publishers have to pay better, especially as their own market declines? Not trying to denigrate the strikers at all.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
The strike is attempting to lower the supply of labor, in order to force the buyer to pay more. However, for a seller to be able to negotiate a higher price from the buyer, the buyer has to be able to pay. And HarperCollins’ business is not exactly raking it in. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NWSA/news/profit-margins https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NWSA/news/profit-m... https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NWSA/news/net-income https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NWSA/news/net-inco...
britch 4y ago
Presumably the employer wants/needs a staff. If they didn't they'd have gone contractor-only a long time ago. The immediate incentive is that the staff they want/need isn't doing the thing. A strike is not a protest. It's a negotiating tactic when you have much else leverage than your ability to work. Realistically scabs/contractors might lessen the strike's leverage. The strike may push the publisher to go "staff-less". Larger organized labor might be able to hold Harpers to account for working around the strike -- like if contractors were organized, if scabbing made it hard to get hired elsewhere. But that's not where labor is at currently.
- tomcam 4y ago
  > Realistically scabs/contractors might lessen the strike's leverage. The strike may push the publisher to go "staff-less". Seems inevitable to me. The publishers will sell their NYC real estate for a one-time bonanza, strip down to a skeleton crew of employees, and contract out most work. Quality will dip far below that of the last 100 years, and few will care. It was a golden age of publishing but I don’t think it’s remotely sustainable.

by tomcam 4y ago

lotsofpulp 4y ago

The strike is attempting to lower the supply of labor, in order to force the buyer to pay more. However, for a seller to be able to negotiate a higher price from the buyer, the buyer has to be able to pay. And HarperCollins’ business is not exactly raking it in. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NWSA/news/profit-margins https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NWSA/news/profit-m... https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NWSA/news/net-income https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NWSA/news/net-inco...

britch 4y ago

Presumably the employer wants/needs a staff. If they didn't they'd have gone contractor-only a long time ago. The immediate incentive is that the staff they want/need isn't doing the thing. A strike is not a protest. It's a negotiating tactic when you have much else leverage than your ability to work. Realistically scabs/contractors might lessen the strike's leverage. The strike may push the publisher to go "staff-less". Larger organized labor might be able to hold Harpers to account for working around the strike -- like if contractors were organized, if scabbing made it hard to get hired elsewhere. But that's not where labor is at currently.

tomcam 4y ago
> Realistically scabs/contractors might lessen the strike's leverage. The strike may push the publisher to go "staff-less". Seems inevitable to me. The publishers will sell their NYC real estate for a one-time bonanza, strip down to a skeleton crew of employees, and contract out most work. Quality will dip far below that of the last 100 years, and few will care. It was a golden age of publishing but I don’t think it’s remotely sustainable.