40 ms·

New York Times tech workers union votes to authorize a strike

539 points by ericnkatz 2y ago

singlepaynews 2y ago
[flagged]
- throwaway4736 2y ago
  Don’t do this.
gamepsys 2y ago
This could be a blueprint for how other tech departments unionize, but I suspect NYT is a unique case because of their politics. Can such a left wing cornerstone really afford to look anti-union inside their own house? This gives the workers more leverage than they would otherwise have in other companies. In any of the places I worked at in the past an anti-union consulting firm would have been called in to bust things up before it ever got this far.
- neaden 2y ago
  "Can such a left wing cornerstone really afford to look anti-union inside their own house?" - The NYTimes isn't left wing and being anti-union is entirely within their wheelhouse. Now they won't come out and say "We don't like unions" all their issues will of course be why this specific union isn't a good idea at this specific time, but they'd never willingly accept a union unless they really don't think they have a choice.
  - nickff 2y ago
    Perhaps the NYT isn't left-wing in a global context, and it is likely centrist in New York City, but it is definitely to the left of the median US voter. They're probably anti-union in this case because they're on tenuous financial footing, and unions in New York have a history of squeezing their employers out of business. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NYT/new-york-times/gross-profit https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NYT/new-york-times...
    - uoaei 2y ago
      Public opinion has little bearing on the decisions that NYT makes, until a critical threshold is passed. The aim of the union is to bring that critical threshold of displeasure into focus and to approach it until NYT relents. The politics of the median voter in the US is not relevant for this discussion.
    - pessimizer 2y ago
      The NYT isn't left-wing in any context, other than one a segment of the US inherited from Glenn Beck some time in the 90s. It is an establishment paper, and energetically capitalist and interventionist. > They're probably anti-union in this case because they're on tenuous financial footing Why does your link say that their profit is up 60%(!) since 2020? ----- edit: tbh, I think people think the NYT is left-wing only because they associate NYC with Jewish people, and they're still steeped in conspiracy theories of "Judeobolshevism." So I guess that's on the Dreyfus affair (through Ezra Pound, Eustace Mullins and the Birchers.) The NYT is a paper owned by a rich family that has always praised every dictator the CIA has praised, and passed on any lie they were asked to.
      - nickff 2y ago
        They've suffered a massive contraction in revenue and already had to cut back hugely; you're ignoring that, and focusing on the bounce-back.
        pessimizer 2y ago
        So what you're saying is that the NYT was doing badly, then had a massive bounce-back. I am supposed to ignore the bounce-back, and accept the contraction that ended at least a half decade ago as an explanation for what is happening today. Why would I do this?
    - Hasu 2y ago
      > Perhaps the NYT isn't left-wing in a global context, and it is likely centrist in New York City, but it is definitely to the left of the median US voter. That isn't true at all. You're probably thinking of the NYT 20 years ago, under the Bush administration. Do you read the newspaper, or are you parroting talking points? I used to subscribe until the blatantly conservative bias became overwhelming. > They're probably anti-union in this case because they're on tenuous financial footing Didn't they just report a 13.3% increase in YoY profits on their most recent financial quarter? Your chart shows a company with healthy growth for several years running. A billion dollars in profit last year and on track to do it again this year isn't "tenuous".
  - seneca 2y ago
    > The NYTimes isn't left wing Allsides media bias rating for NYT is lean left[1], a -2.2 with -6 as the most extreme and 0 as neutral. Rating is left for their opinion section[2], a -4. 1. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times 2. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times-opinion-media-bias https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times-opinion-...
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - TylerE 2y ago
      From that page: Editorial Review: Sep 2018 The NYT's slant has shifted post 2020.
    - norir 2y ago
      I don't fully agree with how neutral is defined. The US has always been a right leaning country for better and worse. I might be able to agree with Allsides on a relative scale but I think all corporate media has a right leaning bias relative to what one would expect from non-profit media. Since very few people regularly consume non-profit media, it is not surprising to me that the NYTimes appears on the left even though I do not agree that it is on an absolute scale.
  - mc32 2y ago
    The NYT has been liberal since I can remember; however, up until relatively recent decades, it was respected by conservatives as well as liberals. Now it reflects liberal and progressive povs.
    - bee_rider 2y ago
      I’ve always thought of NYT as pretty liberal too. Not leftist, those are two totally different philosophies. In the case of union organizing, they might be vaguely on the same side, but only after jumping through a couple hoops. I think leftists are basically in favor of unions in the US because leftists are generally in favor of labor protections, and unions are the best we can get inside the capitalist system. More extreme leftists might prefer some kind of socialist system, but that’s not on the table in America really. Liberals are, of course, typically market oriented (that’s what liberal economics are). A liberal point of view would be “of course people have a basic right to associate with people of their choosing, negotiate contracts, and a union is just a vehicle for doing that.” A union is about as much collectivism as a liberal can stomach, more of a stop-gap for a leftist.
    - klyrs 2y ago
      On the other hand I have recently seen George W. Bush being described as a progressive because he wouldn't say who he's voting for. Left/right determination seems to be made purely on loyalty to a single individual in today's US politics. So if that's where we're at, NYT is liberal because it won't endorse Trump. That's fine, but let's just say that. In the world outside of petty dictatorships, though, left/right determination is made on the basis of alignment with various policies and philosophies -- so increasingly, people within the US are losing credibility when it comes to any conversation about left/right politics.
      - mc32 2y ago
        The neocon thing is weird. Bernie and others used to compare Cheney with pretty unsavory characters in history, but now he’s lauded by progressives. This shit is getting weird. Some weird realignment is happening where former enemies are bedfellows now with a new enemy. In very loose terms, Republicans are subverting previous Democratic issues and the Democrats are subverting previous neocon issues. The Dems now get most of “big money”, new Republicans are now the populists. Broad strokes of course, but that’s how it’s shaping up. If anyone remembers, in the eighties the Repubs were into importing foreign labor (i.e. cheap; hence “no uvas”) and Bernie used to protest against dumping refugees in his state. This has reversed!
- smaudet 2y ago
  > an anti-union consulting firm Hmm. Maybe an anti-anti-union consulting firm is a business opportunity?
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    Who would be purchasing its services? The only obvious customer would be a union, and they already provide that service themselves.
  - diggan 2y ago
    Or, we can use what worked in the past without involving for-profit enterprises: grassroots movements Easier to align people when you remove the whole troublesome "money" part. Question is how to motivate Americans to work together if not for money?
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    Unions sometimes hire on third party organizations to help them organize, I don’t think they are specifically specialized against anti-union consulting firms, but I bet that’s part of it.
- dopylitty 2y ago
  NYT is a pretty solidly right wing organization (eg [1] and [2]) like most for profit media outfits in the US. I suspect they’ll react like any other for profit business. Previous leaks have shown this to be the case [0][3] 0:https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/feb/01/leaked-messages-new-york-times-anti-union-strategy https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/feb/01/leaked-message... 1: https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/news-brief-boudin-recall-coverage-and-how-the-nyt-sells-tough-on-crime-dogma-to-squishy-liberals https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/news-brief-boudin-recall-... 2:https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/news-brief-the-battle-over-nyts-lurid-tabloid-coverage-of-trans-issues https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/news-brief-the-battle-ove... 3:https://actionnetwork.org/letters/new-york-times-stop-union-busting/ https://actionnetwork.org/letters/new-york-times-stop-union-...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- hungie 2y ago
  The NYT is not a left wing organization. It aligns, mostly, with a centrist Democrat politically. That position puts it pretty center right on the global scale. A left wing paper would typically be pretty anti capitalist, anti imperial, etc. which the NYT is definitely not. This is a global forum, it's important to remember that while the democrats in the US are called "the left" there, they really really are not a left wing party.
  - adw 2y ago
    "Center right" is if anything underselling it. The NYT is to the right of, for example, the Financial Times.
    - hungie 2y ago
      And yet, downvotes. I feel like it's pretty objective that NYT isn't leftist in any meaningful way.
  - walrushunter 2y ago
    The Democrats are most definitely leftwing. What a preposterous thing to claim. Just because other countries are withering away under socialism, doesn't suddenly make the Dems right wing.
    - slater 2y ago
      No. By international political standards, the Democratic Party is at best centrist. > Just because other countries are withering away under socialism on the topic of preposterous things to claim...
    - hungie 2y ago
      I'm sorry, you are simply incorrect here. Some members of the Democratic Party are left of center, but by and large they are a center/center right party. They broadly support capitalism, broadly support imperial military power, broadly do not support single payer health care, broadly do not support nationalization of industry, oppose criminal justice reform, oppose upzoning, oppose transit, oppose large tax hikes, and are active in the eradication of minorities. Biden shut down a major labor strike, he expanded drilling for oil, he made it easier for states to medically and socially discriminate against trans people, he's pumped up the police, and he's continuously armed a state accused of genocide. Biden has put forth one of the most restrictive border policies we've ever had, and kept many trump era policies. The democrats also had the opportunity, years ago, to permanently secure abortion access and chose not to. They have by and large expanded the carceral state (and coined the concept of super predators to ensure Black people remained incarcerated.) Also, and this might be a shock, democrats are anti gun, while many many leftists believe in gun ownership. (Karl Marx, Martin Luther king Jr., Malcom X, etc were all believers in individual ownership of firearms.) Leftists generally believe in nationalization, limiting corporate and executive power (or eliminating it), social housing, socialized medicine, free food and water, elimination of oil drilling, trains, dense urban areas, mutual aid, "wellbeing for all", free education, free childcare, etc. I've never once seen a Democrat say that we should abolish private property. If you think democrats are left wing you simply don't understand what left wing means.
- mint2 2y ago
  Regardless of what infographic makers declare, the NYT newsroom is not “left” leaning. Their coverage is much more complicated than left vs right, but one theme is they don’t question the loudest narratives, and they hold grudges when they perceive someone to not give them enough access. The right tends to be louder and more uniform and persistent in messaging, so that coloring often gets unconsciously added to articles rather than the journalists taking a step back and analyzing the whole picture. It’s the quick/lazy way to write stories after all, and journalists have deadlines. The author may be left leaning and some of that may even show, but a little left leaning flavor doesn’t mask that it’s based on the right’s take. The choice of coverage also is very herd like, not left or right. The NYT also goes out of the way to appear fair and balanced, trying to find the “average” in stories. But as anyone but the NYT knows, averages are skewed easily.
  - segasaturn 2y ago
    It's not left vs. right, it's establishment vs. anti-establishment. New York Times was a major cheerleader for the illegal US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and uncritically repeated falsehoods from George W. Bush, who is not exactly a leftist hero.
    - cruffle_duffle 2y ago
      It also was unquestioningly supportive of any and all covid NPI's. NYT was one of the major publications that would routinely report the "covid kill rate" at like 4% despite massive data suggesting it was at least one or two orders of magnitude off depending on the age bracket.
  - thegrim33 2y ago
    Well here's a challenge for you, we can easily put your viewpoint to the test: Go on the NYT website right now and find me a single article currently on the front page that's negative about leftist policies or politicians, or a single article that's positive about rightist policies or politicians. I bet you can't find any. Repeat this experiment, any minute, any hour, any day, any year, for the last 10 years, and you will get the same exact results.
- matrix87 2y ago
  They're about as left wing as hillary clinton. only when it's convenient for them
- MisterBastahrd 2y ago
  Left wing? The NYT is corporate wing. There's no charitable way to look at their reporting on the current election cycle and make the claim that they've treated the candidates equally. Donald Trump hasn't uttered a consecutive set of coherent sentences where he starts with an idea and finishes with an actual conclusion that isn't "and it'll be better / worse than ever before" in at least 5 years.
- keybored 2y ago
  The NYT is as Left Wing as the journalistic profession is Ant-Establishment: Not in the slightest but they themselves constantly claim to be.
delichon 2y ago
How does one refrain from crossing the virtual picket line of such a strike? Is it to not do business with any company with this union's workers, for the duration?
- pessimizer 2y ago
  > not do business with any company with this union's workers, for the duration? Anyone got a list? 1. The New York Times
  - AllegedAlec 2y ago
    Honestly this seems like good advice regardless of strikes.
- tptacek 2y ago
  Continuing to do business with a company whose employees are striking isn't "crossing the picket line". Crossing the picket line means undermining a strike directly by supply labor when organized labor is using a labor embargo as leverage. To avoid crossing the NYT picket line, don't write for the NYT.
  - paxys 2y ago
    Yup in most cases striking employees don't want the end consumer to boycott the company, because ultimately it hurts them as well. Picketing is done to (1) raise awareness and (2) discourage non-union/temporary labor from replacing them during the strike.
  - wpietri 2y ago
    I think at least these days, usage of the term can include customers. For example, this from the University of Maine's Bureau of Labor Education: "Customers may refuse to cross a picket line and picketers have the right to ask customers to honor their picket but should not intimidate, block customer access, disparage a company’s product, or say anything that is untrue or casts the product in a false or misleading light." Or this, from the Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee: "Lastly, customers also have the right to honor the picket line and arguably have the most important role in influencing employers’ decisions, outside of the workers themselves." Or this, from NYT writer: "Having walked a picket line before, I try not to cross anyone else’s. The W and its parent company, Marriott, know there are lots of people like me. So why hadn’t they disclosed in advance what would greet me upon arrival?" [1] https://umaine.edu/ble/wp-content/uploads/sites/181/2014/11/Picket_line.pdf https://umaine.edu/ble/wp-content/uploads/sites/181/2014/11/... [2] https://workerorganizing.org/how-to-honor-the-picket-line-an-ewoc-guide-to-solidarity-5852/ https://workerorganizing.org/how-to-honor-the-picket-line-an... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/01/your-money/should-hotels-tell-guests-strikes-picket-lines.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/01/your-money/should-hotels-...
ChrisArchitect 2y ago
Actual announcement/source: https://x.com/NYTGuildTech/status/1833568353379905562 https://x.com/NYTGuildTech/status/1833568353379905562
- ChrisArchitect 2y ago
  News release here: https://www.nyguild.org/post/new-york-times-tech-guild-votes-yes-to-strike https://www.nyguild.org/post/new-york-times-tech-guild-votes...
ThinkBeat 2y ago
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.
- strict9 2y ago
  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.
  - paxys 2y ago
    In fact I'd wager that one of the reasons for the urgency on the workers' part is to lock up contracts before the election in order to prevent mass layoffs right after.
    - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
      > urgency on the workers' part is to lock up contracts before the election in order to prevent mass layoffs right after. If workers fear mass layoffs, going on strike is a bad idea. Instead, in such a situation the union should attempt to make an agreement with the employer of the kind "no salary increase (as it would be appropriate in consideration of the inflation), but job security for the next years".
      - brianwawok 2y ago
        Which is a great way to have a company full of people who can’t be fired with no motivation, harming the parent organization
        aleph_minus_one 2y ago
        This is trade-off that a company (and thee employee, too) has to make: - does the company want to be able to easily get rid of "undesired"/"lazy" employees? For this option, it will likely have to pay bigger salaries. - on the other hand, for the option to have job security, an employee will have to accept that the expected salary is lower, i.e. the company can save money on salaries, but cannot easily fire the employee. Both are economically sensible solutions.
notfried 2y ago
[flagged]
- ipsum2 2y ago
  NYTimes games section is more popular than its articles. They're basically a mobile game company that happens to have a news division.
  - Jcampuzano2 2y ago
    Not to mention they probably have plenty working on internal tooling/data analysis that assists their reporting. I think people are underestimating how much tech it could take to run a company like the NYTimes.
  - fullstop 2y ago
    Guilty. I've done the daily crossword for the last 445 days.
    - tomcam 2y ago
      I was concerned you broke your streak on 6/23/23 but I heaved a great sigh of relief when you picked it up again on the 24th
    - draw_down 2y ago
      [dead]
- hungie 2y ago
  Maintaining the site, embedding rich media content in the site, managing dynamic elements including apis, ads, etc, managing the cms software, managing payments, building customer service infrastructure, internal tools for developing and launching, security personnel, all the games, tracking engagement and reporting business metrics, building software to manage the physical processes printing and distribution of a massive periodical, managing suppliers, managing access for authors, editors, guest writers, site commenters, and social media workers, managing internationalization and accessibility... and probably a million things I'm forgetting. The complexity of a massive org like the NYT is significantly non trivial.
renewiltord 2y ago
[flagged]
- senand 2y ago
  why?
  - allthedangthats 2y ago
    [flagged]
- neilv 2y ago
  Do you mean that the NYT supports unions in some way with which you disagree, and you want them to be punished for that?
oconnore 2y ago
As I understand it, the earliest they could actually strike would be 80 days from today, as per the Taft-Hartley act, putting the strike on November 29 (after the election). Something seems broken when a group is paid relatively fair wages (https://www.levels.fyi/companies/the-new-york-times-company/salaries/software-engineer?country=254 https://www.levels.fyi/companies/the-new-york-times-company/...), works 35 hours a week before overtime, and is talking about going on a strike. I don't think that fits with the original purpose of unions.
- addicted 2y ago
  > The guild, which was formed in 2022, has yet to secure a contract after more than two years of bargaining. This seems like a pretty reasonable reason to strike. Arguably it’s the most justifiable reason to strike.
  - oconnore 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - portnawx 2y ago
      [dead]
    - Sivart13 2y ago
      The point of organizing a union is to negotiate a contract. One that includes terms that individual workers wouldn't have been able to secure on their own. A union that's recognized but doesn't have a contract may as well not be a union at all. Basically the only power they can exercise is to strike.
    - gamepsys 2y ago
      It means that even though there are members in the guild/union, the company NYT negotiates individually with every member of the guild/union instead of going through the guild/union. The entire worker benefit of the union is collective bargaining and NYT has rejected working with the unions.
hungie 2y ago
Good for them. More workers need to be understanding just how much they are being exploited by their leadership and demand a more equitable piece of the pie.
- seneca 2y ago
  The word "exploit" has no meaning at all if you can stretch it so far as to cover NYC tech employees.
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - paxys 2y ago
      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?
      - gjsman-1000 2y ago
        [flagged]
        paxys 2y ago
        Is the strike about free coffee?
        gjsman-1000 2y ago
        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.
        paxys 2y ago
jawerty 2y ago
As someone who worked here seems odd they'd need a strike pretty good pay/benefits
- mountainriver 2y ago
  Hrm I interviewed there and the pay was definitely sub par
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  Many media companies do not have particularly good pay, nor interesting work, for their developers. I spoke with someone who worked as a dev at Bloomberg, and he described his job as "hooking up javascript listeners all day".
  - gaws 2y ago
    I've heard developers for Bloomberg News, specifically, are some of the highest paid among their media peers.
- matrix87 2y ago
  for nyc the pay is pretty weak
yieldcrv 2y ago
I think all we need to see is a compensation package equivalent to big tech or even greater, amplified by shares and the trendiest cliff for vesting, and tech unions will take off nationwide
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not. There is a huge reason big tech can afford those compensation packages for employees, and the vast majority of companies can simply not afford that. As someone who's been both a union member and on the management side, it's frustrating when all sides don't realize that unions don't magically make money available to distribute to employees. There is certainly the argument that money needs to be distributed more equitably, but in a lot of cases (having seen this directly) there is simply not much money to move around. Certainly, I'd love it if Google's never-ending money spigot was available to all.
  - yieldcrv 2y ago
    I wasn’t being sarcastic, NY Times is publicly traded too and is fully capable of the model where annual share grants are equal to the base salary, as opposed to a tiny sprinkle you’re supposed to be grateful for in leu of none at all. Their tech team isn't that big, their $8bn marketcap could handle the share grants. I had been critical of how wages haven't kept up with expenses for 30 years, while enamored by big tech compensation packages. In my analysis, big tech compensation packages are only reaching parity with the model of what wages would look like if they kept up with expenses, in which case I still shouldn't be impressed or worry about a comparison to what other fields are making. If value can be rationalized, and collective bargaining can extract it, then do that, I’m into it now since we’re close.
    - Manuel_D 2y ago
      According to Google, the NY Times has a profit margin of 6-10% in most quarters. They're not exactly rolling in cash. Not to mention, there's a bunch of other teams at the NY Times that presumably want raises too. What's the justification for giving a raise to developers, but not to the writers that produce the company's main product?
taeric 2y ago
What are their demands? And, cynically, is anyone even going to notice that they are striking? Seems unlikely, to be honest.
- cynicalpeace 2y ago
  [flagged]
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  One of their key demands is to continue to allow remote work: https://www.axios.com/2023/10/30/nyt-tech-workers-walk-out https://www.axios.com/2023/10/30/nyt-tech-workers-walk-out
  - taeric 2y ago
    I saw that mentioned. Was hoping someone had a link that was a bit more informative. Edit: This is also an older link?
    - Manuel_D 2y ago
      It looks like this is the union's platform: https://nytimesguild.org/contract-campaign/ https://nytimesguild.org/contract-campaign/
      - taeric 2y ago
        Thanks for the link. Hate that a lot of their demands seem to be to leverage things they want over positions not covered by their guild. Is that actually a common thing that I just didn't know? I'd not expect a union to impact interviewing practices for all entry-level jobs somewhere.
        smoores 2y ago
        I’m not sure exactly what you mean, but most non-managerial employees at the Times are now unionized. It is no one’s goal to improve the labor standards of the union members at the expense of non-union employees. It is nearly impossible to obtain contract language covering anything other than workplace and employment conditions for union members, as the company isn’t legally required to negotiate over any other topics, which is why you’re seeing reference to requests “for members”. That said, it is very often the case that wins for unionized employees benefit non-union workers as well, because it’s almost always not worth the administrative overhead for the company to have multiple separate policies for similar jobs.
tqi 2y ago
> 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?
- arcticbull 2y ago
  Maybe the title is for an IC role, as for a "customer success manager."
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- AnotherGoodName 2y ago
  Generally anyone below director level makes sense imho. The biggest advocate of pay rises and improvements to conditions is often the line level managers and those one step up from the line level managers. If this is a typical corporate job title this is a manager of line level managers. He probably has quarterly 1:1s or at least office hours supporting those at the lowest levels. It’s not like you become a line level manager, accept the 20% pay rises and suddenly change your outlook on everything. You’re never that far removed. Advocacy is important for management so I have no issues with this.
  - xboxnolifes 2y ago
    There's been a sucessful corporate ruse to make line level managers seem above line level workers and make line level works side against line level mamagers, while both sides are of the same labor class.
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      I consider anyone who doesn’t have the power to spend money a supervisor (or someone whose role is to cover in the event of short staffing) instead of a manager. What are you even managing if you can’t spend a little more to ensure you have the people you need?
4thgenrustcoder 2y ago
[dead]
aleph_minus_one 2y ago
It is not clear to me whether going on a strike is a good idea for the New York Times tech workers: Since media is not a sector that has high margins, when a company gets under pressure to have to increase the salaries (e.g. by strikes), the management better starts to analyze how you can reduce the number of, in this case, tech workers because with thin margins, budging in these negotiations is much more dangerous for the mere existence of the business than if the margins are high. Instead of going on strike, it would in my opinion be a better idea for the tech workers to look for a better paid job in an industry with higher margins.
- evantbyrne 2y ago
  Maybe they want to stay in news media. When I worked at The Atlantic, a lot of my coworkers were highly motivated by the subject matter of their work and perceived quality of their newsroom.
  - debacle 2y ago
    Then, like gaming or Hollywood, their salaries will be lower.
    - dymk 2y ago
      And they’re protected by a union
    - lacker 2y ago
      Maybe the New York Times will end up both with a unionized tech workforce, and a lower-paid one. Personally, I would never want to join a union or work as management at a company with a union, but I am still kind of curious to see what the result of a tech workforce unionizing would be.
      - ipaddr 2y ago
        Lower salaries and treating everyone like a cog.
WaitWaitWha 2y ago
I am trying to justify 622 Tech workers with the 700mm visits noted. Can someone explain it to me? 622 * $124,584 [0] * 1.25 = $96,864,060/year Their CPM and CPC would need to be seriously fine tuned to sustain this. $5 per 1,000 visitors (CPM): they would need 19.37 billion ad impressions. Similar problem when calculating CPC with $0.10 to $2 range. I cannot see how they are still in business. [0] https://www.roberthalf.com/us/en/insights/career-development/tech-careers-and-salaries-in-new-york-city https://www.roberthalf.com/us/en/insights/career-development...
- dwaltrip 2y ago
  Don’t forget to include subscription revenue, also their extra offerings of games, cooking, etc
  - mattdotc 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - shepherdjerred 2y ago
      What? The commenter approached this just fine. They didn't state anything as fact and asked for others to weigh in. This is completely reasonable in a discussion.
    - tomcam 2y ago
      Might want to reread https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and especially this section: In Comments Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
ETH_start 2y ago
[flagged]
- SiempreViernes 2y ago
  What happened to the police, did they resign their watchmen role?
  - ETH_start 2y ago
    Police are enforcers. The watchmen in a democracy are principally journalists.
- thinkingtoilet 2y ago
  You think the unions own the paper? The editorial board? I have news for you, if there is bias it's not coming from the people not in control. It's coming from the ultra-wealthy people who own these media outlets and I promise you they are not pro-union.
  - ETH_start 2y ago
    If the editorial board and these ultra-wealthy people want to stay on the good side of the news guild that all of their journalists are members of, then they have to be pro-union. They have to accept the very premise on which the laws that advantage unions were passed, which forces the employer to engage in collective bargaining with the union to the exclusion of all other parties. The pressure for the management at news media companies to pander to unions on these issues is enormous and inescapable.
- advisedwang 2y ago
  This union doesn't include the journalists anyway.
janalsncm 2y ago
It should tell you something that 95% of the union voted to strike. I found more information from them here: https://www.nyguild.org/post/new-york-times-tech-guild-votes-yes-to-strike https://www.nyguild.org/post/new-york-times-tech-guild-votes... I wonder how other news outlets will cover this, if at all. They’re probably afraid others will get the same idea.
- sieabahlpark 2y ago
  That lists the pay discrepancy but doesn't mention if there are literally any factors for the disparity such as role, responsibilities, performance, etc. It just mentions race, which gives me absolutely no usable information to give credibility. If we are to assume black and women workers have historically been missing entirely from tech then the efforts of recent initiatives would bring fresh people in? Those newer people wouldn't have the same length of professional experience but the expectation is to be paid equal? Put another way if the CEO is white and they make 50m and you have two employees, one black and one white who each make 50k, the average for white workers would be skewed higher? Before anyone replies "um actually, it's only workers within the guild, the CEO isn't included", okay, but does everyone in the guild have the same job title, experience, and responsibilities? As an aside, they've structured that website like trash. Yes, I'd love to click a link to see the pay study which is just duplicated below the link without any additional information. It's like they purposely are trying to say nothing but be loud.
- aurareturn 2y ago
  Isn’t it a little ironic that NY Times, and most east coast media, is very anti big tech and pro union while their own employees are protesting because of low wages? Who are they to judge how big tech treats their employees when they pay their own so poorly?
  - ljlolel 2y ago
    They’re also incredibly non-diverse and complain about big tech being non-diverse.
Vosporos 2y ago
[flagged]
sensanaty 2y ago
Always love seeing the temporarily-embarassed-billionaire-CEO type on HN espousing anti-union views. Such a fascinating indoctrination happening there every time.
- azemetre 2y ago
  It's not hard to understand, this is a site where people champion working overtime hours for the chance at a lottery ticket or prefer working for companies that are destructive to society and anticompetitive.
skapadia 2y ago
Highly talented software engineers are still hard to find. If you find one, pay them well and do everything you can to retain them.
- devwastaken 2y ago
  This is because software dev is a volatile market. It doesn't matter how "talented" you are, it's about your rank in the social circles and it shows in the product. There is now far more devs than there is work for them. This is a planned strategy to reduce salaries. If you're "talented". Make your money and get out asap.
  - goosejuice 2y ago
    Planned by whom?
    - zingababba 2y ago
      Them >_<
    - devwastaken 2y ago
      The tech cartel faang and adjacent. People talk to each other.
  - datavirtue 2y ago
    This is what I preach to my kids. Get to work, live at home, save everything and invest. There is a huge difference between kids attitudes these days and those of the gen-x crowd. I loved my first jobs, they were so fun and people treated me very well. My children have dipped into the work force a bit and found it very nasty and hostile across various industries. My son trained as a machinist. A job that is very well suited to him. He asked for PPE (respirator, gloves) at his first job and was educating himself on the chemicals used in his area. After incurring chemical burns and respuratory issues he had them put the labels back on the barrels and again requested PPE. They threw him out on his ass, but not before attempting to humiliate and denigrate him. He is traumatized now and seeking disability benefits from the government. I don't have much to stand on when trying to convince him to keep trying.
_cs2017_ 2y ago
How much of a comp boost would an average NYT tech worker get if the union succeeded? Let's say 10% for the sake of the argument. Please correct me if I'm way off. Wouldn't they be able to get a much higher comp by interviewing with other local tech firms? If so, why don't they? Seems more effective than waiting and hoping for a small increase through the union.
- xingped 2y ago
  This is such a weird response. Do you collectively interview for other jobs? No. Would you tell any other union this? No. Collectively bargain for your current job and raise the standards for everyone now and in the future. I don't know why tech is so hyper-individualist.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    It doesn't raise standards. It squishes them at both ends, particularly the top. That might be what you want, but tech salaries have bloomed massively because there isn't a union. You might say "that's over; now let's lock in our massive salaries", but I doubt it'll work that way. Tech isn't hyper-individualist. It just leans slightly to the individual, because any half-decent tech worker is worth a lot to an organisation, and they don't need a union rep to negotiate on their (and hundreds of other people's) behalf.
    - triceratops 2y ago
      > tech salaries have bloomed massively because there isn't a union I presume you support free markets, so I'm surprised that supply and demand never crossed your mind as the reason for high tech salaries. Professional athletes, actors, and screenwriters enjoy both high salaries and union protections.
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        > I'm surprised that supply and demand never crossed your mind as the reason for high tech salaries No need to be surprised - it more than crossed my mind. > Professional athletes, actors, and screenwriters enjoy both high salaries and union protections Well, screenwriters aren't in the same ballpark as the other two, but the highly paid athletes and actors are not having their wages negotiated by a union rep. They have agents. Most actors are barely paid anything, and have union membership.
marxisttemp 2y ago
Let’s all remember that the vast majority of programmers are not mathematicians, nor logicians, nor authors, we are tradespeople. And you’ll notice that tradespeople in almost every other industry unionize.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  I don't understand - how are programmers different to logicians in a way that's relevant to this?
  - marxisttemp 2y ago
    Very few programmers I know spend their time devising logical theorems. They spend their time plumbing and engineering systems.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      But how's that relevant to this?
      - enriquec 2y ago
        [flagged]
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- Workaccount2 2y ago
  Programmers are white collar engineers, I think you are confused here. Doesn't mean they can't create/join a union, but they are not really in the tradesman category. White collar unions are much tinier.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
farceSpherule 2y ago
JFC... Let's just unionize every job...
ncr100 2y ago
Awesome news. In my experience, Mismanagement, both in personnel and compensation, seems to be commonplace, as corporations seek to lower costs in response to our changing economy. Corporations looking to find an advantage may shortchange employees, overwork them, and not train managers but rather expect everybody to "just work well together", deflecting responsibility. Unionizing provides a relief valve where unions can strongly argue for better working environments. The individual no longer has to have a half-baked idea and be afraid to raise it, for fear of retribution or simply for fear of being proven to be an impotent cog mating to a very large wheel.
- umvi 2y ago
  If you read books from the early 1900s (Radium Girls, Rocket Boys, Seabiscuit), it's painfully obvious to see how incredibly exploitative industries can become (literally working people to death) without something like a union to check corporate greed against worker well-being. It's a fine balance though. Unions are organizations very similar to companies and can fall victim to the same sins as exploitative companies (or worse, like in the 60s when the Teamsters Union became controlled by the mafia and was used to further organized crime goals)
  - bad_user 2y ago
    It should also be painfully obvious that, during those times, the alternative — subsistence agriculture — was much worse, and people working in factories no longer starved. The industrial revolution, AKA "greed", has ended starvation and slavery, so when socialists of late 1800s or early 1900s talk of exploitation, that should raise an eyebrow. Unions are not similar to companies because they don't compete on the free market. For this reason, much like all state-funded institutions, unions are much more prone to corruption.
    - thierrydamiba 2y ago
      Just fyi the UN estimates 25,000 people die from hunger everyday and there are currently 50 million slaves around the world. Easy to forget but these things still exist.
Yawrehto 2y ago
I wonder how long it'll stay. The poor strikers at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette have been going for 22 months[1] (!) so far. It's impressive. Until then, they've set up the Pittsburgh Union-Progress.[2] What's weird is how no one seems to mention it, even in Pittsburgh. How can a strike go on for 22 months with (almost) no one noticing/caring? [1] https://www.unionprogress.com/2024/08/24/a-22-month-strike-journey-from-staring-sleepless-into-the-darkness-at-3-a-m-to-finding-hope/ https://www.unionprogress.com/2024/08/24/a-22-month-strike-j... [2] Which is somehow only one of several nonprofit news outlets covering Pittsburgh? Aside from the Union-Progress there's Publicsource, the Allegheny Front, WQED, WESA, the Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle, and the semi-local 100 Days in Appalachia, Belt Magazine, Spotlight PA. (As well as the just-closed Pittsburgh Institute for Nonprofit Journalism.) It feels weirdly disproportionate to its population. Is there any data on the cities most overrepresented in nonprofit news outlets covering them? Or just news outlets?
elzbardico 2y ago
I wonder how many workers actually voted for this. The list of demands is basically a crazy woke wishlist.
1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
As a former Sunday NYT subscriber I would like to see more pay go to hiring and retaining journalists and less to so-called "tech" workers. The web development nonsense has made the NYT worse, not better to this reader. Other readers may disagree.

539 points by ericnkatz 2y ago

singlepaynews 2y ago

[flagged]

throwaway4736 2y ago
Don’t do this.

gamepsys 2y ago

This could be a blueprint for how other tech departments unionize, but I suspect NYT is a unique case because of their politics. Can such a left wing cornerstone really afford to look anti-union inside their own house? This gives the workers more leverage than they would otherwise have in other companies. In any of the places I worked at in the past an anti-union consulting firm would have been called in to bust things up before it ever got this far.

neaden 2y ago
"Can such a left wing cornerstone really afford to look anti-union inside their own house?" - The NYTimes isn't left wing and being anti-union is entirely within their wheelhouse. Now they won't come out and say "We don't like unions" all their issues will of course be why this specific union isn't a good idea at this specific time, but they'd never willingly accept a union unless they really don't think they have a choice.
- nickff 2y ago
  Perhaps the NYT isn't left-wing in a global context, and it is likely centrist in New York City, but it is definitely to the left of the median US voter. They're probably anti-union in this case because they're on tenuous financial footing, and unions in New York have a history of squeezing their employers out of business. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NYT/new-york-times/gross-profit https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NYT/new-york-times...
  - uoaei 2y ago
    Public opinion has little bearing on the decisions that NYT makes, until a critical threshold is passed. The aim of the union is to bring that critical threshold of displeasure into focus and to approach it until NYT relents. The politics of the median voter in the US is not relevant for this discussion.
  - pessimizer 2y ago
    The NYT isn't left-wing in any context, other than one a segment of the US inherited from Glenn Beck some time in the 90s. It is an establishment paper, and energetically capitalist and interventionist. > They're probably anti-union in this case because they're on tenuous financial footing Why does your link say that their profit is up 60%(!) since 2020? ----- edit: tbh, I think people think the NYT is left-wing only because they associate NYC with Jewish people, and they're still steeped in conspiracy theories of "Judeobolshevism." So I guess that's on the Dreyfus affair (through Ezra Pound, Eustace Mullins and the Birchers.) The NYT is a paper owned by a rich family that has always praised every dictator the CIA has praised, and passed on any lie they were asked to.
    - nickff 2y ago
      They've suffered a massive contraction in revenue and already had to cut back hugely; you're ignoring that, and focusing on the bounce-back.
      - pessimizer 2y ago
        So what you're saying is that the NYT was doing badly, then had a massive bounce-back. I am supposed to ignore the bounce-back, and accept the contraction that ended at least a half decade ago as an explanation for what is happening today. Why would I do this?
  - Hasu 2y ago
    > Perhaps the NYT isn't left-wing in a global context, and it is likely centrist in New York City, but it is definitely to the left of the median US voter. That isn't true at all. You're probably thinking of the NYT 20 years ago, under the Bush administration. Do you read the newspaper, or are you parroting talking points? I used to subscribe until the blatantly conservative bias became overwhelming. > They're probably anti-union in this case because they're on tenuous financial footing Didn't they just report a 13.3% increase in YoY profits on their most recent financial quarter? Your chart shows a company with healthy growth for several years running. A billion dollars in profit last year and on track to do it again this year isn't "tenuous".
- seneca 2y ago
  > The NYTimes isn't left wing Allsides media bias rating for NYT is lean left[1], a -2.2 with -6 as the most extreme and 0 as neutral. Rating is left for their opinion section[2], a -4. 1. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times 2. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times-opinion-media-bias https://www.allsides.com/news-source/new-york-times-opinion-...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - TylerE 2y ago
    From that page: Editorial Review: Sep 2018 The NYT's slant has shifted post 2020.
  - norir 2y ago
    I don't fully agree with how neutral is defined. The US has always been a right leaning country for better and worse. I might be able to agree with Allsides on a relative scale but I think all corporate media has a right leaning bias relative to what one would expect from non-profit media. Since very few people regularly consume non-profit media, it is not surprising to me that the NYTimes appears on the left even though I do not agree that it is on an absolute scale.
- mc32 2y ago
  The NYT has been liberal since I can remember; however, up until relatively recent decades, it was respected by conservatives as well as liberals. Now it reflects liberal and progressive povs.
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    I’ve always thought of NYT as pretty liberal too. Not leftist, those are two totally different philosophies. In the case of union organizing, they might be vaguely on the same side, but only after jumping through a couple hoops. I think leftists are basically in favor of unions in the US because leftists are generally in favor of labor protections, and unions are the best we can get inside the capitalist system. More extreme leftists might prefer some kind of socialist system, but that’s not on the table in America really. Liberals are, of course, typically market oriented (that’s what liberal economics are). A liberal point of view would be “of course people have a basic right to associate with people of their choosing, negotiate contracts, and a union is just a vehicle for doing that.” A union is about as much collectivism as a liberal can stomach, more of a stop-gap for a leftist.
  - klyrs 2y ago
    On the other hand I have recently seen George W. Bush being described as a progressive because he wouldn't say who he's voting for. Left/right determination seems to be made purely on loyalty to a single individual in today's US politics. So if that's where we're at, NYT is liberal because it won't endorse Trump. That's fine, but let's just say that. In the world outside of petty dictatorships, though, left/right determination is made on the basis of alignment with various policies and philosophies -- so increasingly, people within the US are losing credibility when it comes to any conversation about left/right politics.
    - mc32 2y ago
      The neocon thing is weird. Bernie and others used to compare Cheney with pretty unsavory characters in history, but now he’s lauded by progressives. This shit is getting weird. Some weird realignment is happening where former enemies are bedfellows now with a new enemy. In very loose terms, Republicans are subverting previous Democratic issues and the Democrats are subverting previous neocon issues. The Dems now get most of “big money”, new Republicans are now the populists. Broad strokes of course, but that’s how it’s shaping up. If anyone remembers, in the eighties the Repubs were into importing foreign labor (i.e. cheap; hence “no uvas”) and Bernie used to protest against dumping refugees in his state. This has reversed!
smaudet 2y ago
> an anti-union consulting firm Hmm. Maybe an anti-anti-union consulting firm is a business opportunity?
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  Who would be purchasing its services? The only obvious customer would be a union, and they already provide that service themselves.
- diggan 2y ago
  Or, we can use what worked in the past without involving for-profit enterprises: grassroots movements Easier to align people when you remove the whole troublesome "money" part. Question is how to motivate Americans to work together if not for money?
- bee_rider 2y ago
  Unions sometimes hire on third party organizations to help them organize, I don’t think they are specifically specialized against anti-union consulting firms, but I bet that’s part of it.
dopylitty 2y ago
NYT is a pretty solidly right wing organization (eg [1] and [2]) like most for profit media outfits in the US. I suspect they’ll react like any other for profit business. Previous leaks have shown this to be the case [0][3] 0:https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/feb/01/leaked-messages-new-york-times-anti-union-strategy https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/feb/01/leaked-message... 1: https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/news-brief-boudin-recall-coverage-and-how-the-nyt-sells-tough-on-crime-dogma-to-squishy-liberals https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/news-brief-boudin-recall-... 2:https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/news-brief-the-battle-over-nyts-lurid-tabloid-coverage-of-trans-issues https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/news-brief-the-battle-ove... 3:https://actionnetwork.org/letters/new-york-times-stop-union-busting/ https://actionnetwork.org/letters/new-york-times-stop-union-...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
hungie 2y ago
The NYT is not a left wing organization. It aligns, mostly, with a centrist Democrat politically. That position puts it pretty center right on the global scale. A left wing paper would typically be pretty anti capitalist, anti imperial, etc. which the NYT is definitely not. This is a global forum, it's important to remember that while the democrats in the US are called "the left" there, they really really are not a left wing party.
- adw 2y ago
  "Center right" is if anything underselling it. The NYT is to the right of, for example, the Financial Times.
  - hungie 2y ago
    And yet, downvotes. I feel like it's pretty objective that NYT isn't leftist in any meaningful way.
- walrushunter 2y ago
  The Democrats are most definitely leftwing. What a preposterous thing to claim. Just because other countries are withering away under socialism, doesn't suddenly make the Dems right wing.
  - slater 2y ago
    No. By international political standards, the Democratic Party is at best centrist. > Just because other countries are withering away under socialism on the topic of preposterous things to claim...
  - hungie 2y ago
    I'm sorry, you are simply incorrect here. Some members of the Democratic Party are left of center, but by and large they are a center/center right party. They broadly support capitalism, broadly support imperial military power, broadly do not support single payer health care, broadly do not support nationalization of industry, oppose criminal justice reform, oppose upzoning, oppose transit, oppose large tax hikes, and are active in the eradication of minorities. Biden shut down a major labor strike, he expanded drilling for oil, he made it easier for states to medically and socially discriminate against trans people, he's pumped up the police, and he's continuously armed a state accused of genocide. Biden has put forth one of the most restrictive border policies we've ever had, and kept many trump era policies. The democrats also had the opportunity, years ago, to permanently secure abortion access and chose not to. They have by and large expanded the carceral state (and coined the concept of super predators to ensure Black people remained incarcerated.) Also, and this might be a shock, democrats are anti gun, while many many leftists believe in gun ownership. (Karl Marx, Martin Luther king Jr., Malcom X, etc were all believers in individual ownership of firearms.) Leftists generally believe in nationalization, limiting corporate and executive power (or eliminating it), social housing, socialized medicine, free food and water, elimination of oil drilling, trains, dense urban areas, mutual aid, "wellbeing for all", free education, free childcare, etc. I've never once seen a Democrat say that we should abolish private property. If you think democrats are left wing you simply don't understand what left wing means.
mint2 2y ago
Regardless of what infographic makers declare, the NYT newsroom is not “left” leaning. Their coverage is much more complicated than left vs right, but one theme is they don’t question the loudest narratives, and they hold grudges when they perceive someone to not give them enough access. The right tends to be louder and more uniform and persistent in messaging, so that coloring often gets unconsciously added to articles rather than the journalists taking a step back and analyzing the whole picture. It’s the quick/lazy way to write stories after all, and journalists have deadlines. The author may be left leaning and some of that may even show, but a little left leaning flavor doesn’t mask that it’s based on the right’s take. The choice of coverage also is very herd like, not left or right. The NYT also goes out of the way to appear fair and balanced, trying to find the “average” in stories. But as anyone but the NYT knows, averages are skewed easily.
- segasaturn 2y ago
  It's not left vs. right, it's establishment vs. anti-establishment. New York Times was a major cheerleader for the illegal US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and uncritically repeated falsehoods from George W. Bush, who is not exactly a leftist hero.
  - cruffle_duffle 2y ago
    It also was unquestioningly supportive of any and all covid NPI's. NYT was one of the major publications that would routinely report the "covid kill rate" at like 4% despite massive data suggesting it was at least one or two orders of magnitude off depending on the age bracket.
- thegrim33 2y ago
  Well here's a challenge for you, we can easily put your viewpoint to the test: Go on the NYT website right now and find me a single article currently on the front page that's negative about leftist policies or politicians, or a single article that's positive about rightist policies or politicians. I bet you can't find any. Repeat this experiment, any minute, any hour, any day, any year, for the last 10 years, and you will get the same exact results.
matrix87 2y ago
They're about as left wing as hillary clinton. only when it's convenient for them
MisterBastahrd 2y ago
Left wing? The NYT is corporate wing. There's no charitable way to look at their reporting on the current election cycle and make the claim that they've treated the candidates equally. Donald Trump hasn't uttered a consecutive set of coherent sentences where he starts with an idea and finishes with an actual conclusion that isn't "and it'll be better / worse than ever before" in at least 5 years.
keybored 2y ago
The NYT is as Left Wing as the journalistic profession is Ant-Establishment: Not in the slightest but they themselves constantly claim to be.

delichon 2y ago

How does one refrain from crossing the virtual picket line of such a strike? Is it to not do business with any company with this union's workers, for the duration?

pessimizer 2y ago
> not do business with any company with this union's workers, for the duration? Anyone got a list? 1. The New York Times
- AllegedAlec 2y ago
  Honestly this seems like good advice regardless of strikes.
tptacek 2y ago
Continuing to do business with a company whose employees are striking isn't "crossing the picket line". Crossing the picket line means undermining a strike directly by supply labor when organized labor is using a labor embargo as leverage. To avoid crossing the NYT picket line, don't write for the NYT.
- paxys 2y ago
  Yup in most cases striking employees don't want the end consumer to boycott the company, because ultimately it hurts them as well. Picketing is done to (1) raise awareness and (2) discourage non-union/temporary labor from replacing them during the strike.
- wpietri 2y ago
  I think at least these days, usage of the term can include customers. For example, this from the University of Maine's Bureau of Labor Education: "Customers may refuse to cross a picket line and picketers have the right to ask customers to honor their picket but should not intimidate, block customer access, disparage a company’s product, or say anything that is untrue or casts the product in a false or misleading light." Or this, from the Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee: "Lastly, customers also have the right to honor the picket line and arguably have the most important role in influencing employers’ decisions, outside of the workers themselves." Or this, from NYT writer: "Having walked a picket line before, I try not to cross anyone else’s. The W and its parent company, Marriott, know there are lots of people like me. So why hadn’t they disclosed in advance what would greet me upon arrival?" [1] https://umaine.edu/ble/wp-content/uploads/sites/181/2014/11/Picket_line.pdf https://umaine.edu/ble/wp-content/uploads/sites/181/2014/11/... [2] https://workerorganizing.org/how-to-honor-the-picket-line-an-ewoc-guide-to-solidarity-5852/ https://workerorganizing.org/how-to-honor-the-picket-line-an... [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/01/your-money/should-hotels-tell-guests-strikes-picket-lines.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/01/your-money/should-hotels-...

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

Actual announcement/source: https://x.com/NYTGuildTech/status/1833568353379905562 https://x.com/NYTGuildTech/status/1833568353379905562

ChrisArchitect 2y ago
News release here: https://www.nyguild.org/post/new-york-times-tech-guild-votes-yes-to-strike https://www.nyguild.org/post/new-york-times-tech-guild-votes...

ThinkBeat 2y ago

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.

strict9 2y ago
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.
- paxys 2y ago
  In fact I'd wager that one of the reasons for the urgency on the workers' part is to lock up contracts before the election in order to prevent mass layoffs right after.
  - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
    > urgency on the workers' part is to lock up contracts before the election in order to prevent mass layoffs right after. If workers fear mass layoffs, going on strike is a bad idea. Instead, in such a situation the union should attempt to make an agreement with the employer of the kind "no salary increase (as it would be appropriate in consideration of the inflation), but job security for the next years".
    - brianwawok 2y ago
      Which is a great way to have a company full of people who can’t be fired with no motivation, harming the parent organization
      - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
        This is trade-off that a company (and thee employee, too) has to make: - does the company want to be able to easily get rid of "undesired"/"lazy" employees? For this option, it will likely have to pay bigger salaries. - on the other hand, for the option to have job security, an employee will have to accept that the expected salary is lower, i.e. the company can save money on salaries, but cannot easily fire the employee. Both are economically sensible solutions.

notfried 2y ago

[flagged]

ipsum2 2y ago
NYTimes games section is more popular than its articles. They're basically a mobile game company that happens to have a news division.
- Jcampuzano2 2y ago
  Not to mention they probably have plenty working on internal tooling/data analysis that assists their reporting. I think people are underestimating how much tech it could take to run a company like the NYTimes.
- fullstop 2y ago
  Guilty. I've done the daily crossword for the last 445 days.
  - tomcam 2y ago
    I was concerned you broke your streak on 6/23/23 but I heaved a great sigh of relief when you picked it up again on the 24th
  - draw_down 2y ago
    [dead]
hungie 2y ago
Maintaining the site, embedding rich media content in the site, managing dynamic elements including apis, ads, etc, managing the cms software, managing payments, building customer service infrastructure, internal tools for developing and launching, security personnel, all the games, tracking engagement and reporting business metrics, building software to manage the physical processes printing and distribution of a massive periodical, managing suppliers, managing access for authors, editors, guest writers, site commenters, and social media workers, managing internationalization and accessibility... and probably a million things I'm forgetting. The complexity of a massive org like the NYT is significantly non trivial.

renewiltord 2y ago

[flagged]

senand 2y ago
why?
- allthedangthats 2y ago
  [flagged]
neilv 2y ago
Do you mean that the NYT supports unions in some way with which you disagree, and you want them to be punished for that?

oconnore 2y ago

As I understand it, the earliest they could actually strike would be 80 days from today, as per the Taft-Hartley act, putting the strike on November 29 (after the election). Something seems broken when a group is paid relatively fair wages (https://www.levels.fyi/companies/the-new-york-times-company/salaries/software-engineer?country=254 https://www.levels.fyi/companies/the-new-york-times-company/...), works 35 hours a week before overtime, and is talking about going on a strike. I don't think that fits with the original purpose of unions.

addicted 2y ago
> The guild, which was formed in 2022, has yet to secure a contract after more than two years of bargaining. This seems like a pretty reasonable reason to strike. Arguably it’s the most justifiable reason to strike.
- oconnore 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - portnawx 2y ago
    [dead]
  - Sivart13 2y ago
    The point of organizing a union is to negotiate a contract. One that includes terms that individual workers wouldn't have been able to secure on their own. A union that's recognized but doesn't have a contract may as well not be a union at all. Basically the only power they can exercise is to strike.
  - gamepsys 2y ago
    It means that even though there are members in the guild/union, the company NYT negotiates individually with every member of the guild/union instead of going through the guild/union. The entire worker benefit of the union is collective bargaining and NYT has rejected working with the unions.

hungie 2y ago

Good for them. More workers need to be understanding just how much they are being exploited by their leadership and demand a more equitable piece of the pie.

seneca 2y ago
The word "exploit" has no meaning at all if you can stretch it so far as to cover NYC tech employees.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - paxys 2y ago
    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?
    - gjsman-1000 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - paxys 2y ago
        Is the strike about free coffee?
        gjsman-1000 2y ago
        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.
        paxys 2y ago

jawerty 2y ago

As someone who worked here seems odd they'd need a strike pretty good pay/benefits

mountainriver 2y ago
Hrm I interviewed there and the pay was definitely sub par
Manuel_D 2y ago
Many media companies do not have particularly good pay, nor interesting work, for their developers. I spoke with someone who worked as a dev at Bloomberg, and he described his job as "hooking up javascript listeners all day".
- gaws 2y ago
  I've heard developers for Bloomberg News, specifically, are some of the highest paid among their media peers.
matrix87 2y ago
for nyc the pay is pretty weak

yieldcrv 2y ago

I think all we need to see is a compensation package equivalent to big tech or even greater, amplified by shares and the trendiest cliff for vesting, and tech unions will take off nationwide

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not. There is a huge reason big tech can afford those compensation packages for employees, and the vast majority of companies can simply not afford that. As someone who's been both a union member and on the management side, it's frustrating when all sides don't realize that unions don't magically make money available to distribute to employees. There is certainly the argument that money needs to be distributed more equitably, but in a lot of cases (having seen this directly) there is simply not much money to move around. Certainly, I'd love it if Google's never-ending money spigot was available to all.
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  I wasn’t being sarcastic, NY Times is publicly traded too and is fully capable of the model where annual share grants are equal to the base salary, as opposed to a tiny sprinkle you’re supposed to be grateful for in leu of none at all. Their tech team isn't that big, their $8bn marketcap could handle the share grants. I had been critical of how wages haven't kept up with expenses for 30 years, while enamored by big tech compensation packages. In my analysis, big tech compensation packages are only reaching parity with the model of what wages would look like if they kept up with expenses, in which case I still shouldn't be impressed or worry about a comparison to what other fields are making. If value can be rationalized, and collective bargaining can extract it, then do that, I’m into it now since we’re close.
  - Manuel_D 2y ago
    According to Google, the NY Times has a profit margin of 6-10% in most quarters. They're not exactly rolling in cash. Not to mention, there's a bunch of other teams at the NY Times that presumably want raises too. What's the justification for giving a raise to developers, but not to the writers that produce the company's main product?

taeric 2y ago

What are their demands? And, cynically, is anyone even going to notice that they are striking? Seems unlikely, to be honest.

cynicalpeace 2y ago
[flagged]
Manuel_D 2y ago
One of their key demands is to continue to allow remote work: https://www.axios.com/2023/10/30/nyt-tech-workers-walk-out https://www.axios.com/2023/10/30/nyt-tech-workers-walk-out
- taeric 2y ago
  I saw that mentioned. Was hoping someone had a link that was a bit more informative. Edit: This is also an older link?
  - Manuel_D 2y ago
    It looks like this is the union's platform: https://nytimesguild.org/contract-campaign/ https://nytimesguild.org/contract-campaign/
    - taeric 2y ago
      Thanks for the link. Hate that a lot of their demands seem to be to leverage things they want over positions not covered by their guild. Is that actually a common thing that I just didn't know? I'd not expect a union to impact interviewing practices for all entry-level jobs somewhere.
      - smoores 2y ago
        I’m not sure exactly what you mean, but most non-managerial employees at the Times are now unionized. It is no one’s goal to improve the labor standards of the union members at the expense of non-union employees. It is nearly impossible to obtain contract language covering anything other than workplace and employment conditions for union members, as the company isn’t legally required to negotiate over any other topics, which is why you’re seeing reference to requests “for members”. That said, it is very often the case that wins for unionized employees benefit non-union workers as well, because it’s almost always not worth the administrative overhead for the company to have multiple separate policies for similar jobs.

tqi 2y ago

> 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?

arcticbull 2y ago
Maybe the title is for an IC role, as for a "customer success manager."
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
AnotherGoodName 2y ago
Generally anyone below director level makes sense imho. The biggest advocate of pay rises and improvements to conditions is often the line level managers and those one step up from the line level managers. If this is a typical corporate job title this is a manager of line level managers. He probably has quarterly 1:1s or at least office hours supporting those at the lowest levels. It’s not like you become a line level manager, accept the 20% pay rises and suddenly change your outlook on everything. You’re never that far removed. Advocacy is important for management so I have no issues with this.
- xboxnolifes 2y ago
  There's been a sucessful corporate ruse to make line level managers seem above line level workers and make line level works side against line level mamagers, while both sides are of the same labor class.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    I consider anyone who doesn’t have the power to spend money a supervisor (or someone whose role is to cover in the event of short staffing) instead of a manager. What are you even managing if you can’t spend a little more to ensure you have the people you need?

4thgenrustcoder 2y ago

[dead]

aleph_minus_one 2y ago

It is not clear to me whether going on a strike is a good idea for the New York Times tech workers: Since media is not a sector that has high margins, when a company gets under pressure to have to increase the salaries (e.g. by strikes), the management better starts to analyze how you can reduce the number of, in this case, tech workers because with thin margins, budging in these negotiations is much more dangerous for the mere existence of the business than if the margins are high. Instead of going on strike, it would in my opinion be a better idea for the tech workers to look for a better paid job in an industry with higher margins.

evantbyrne 2y ago
Maybe they want to stay in news media. When I worked at The Atlantic, a lot of my coworkers were highly motivated by the subject matter of their work and perceived quality of their newsroom.
- debacle 2y ago
  Then, like gaming or Hollywood, their salaries will be lower.
  - dymk 2y ago
    And they’re protected by a union
  - lacker 2y ago
    Maybe the New York Times will end up both with a unionized tech workforce, and a lower-paid one. Personally, I would never want to join a union or work as management at a company with a union, but I am still kind of curious to see what the result of a tech workforce unionizing would be.
    - ipaddr 2y ago
      Lower salaries and treating everyone like a cog.

WaitWaitWha 2y ago

I am trying to justify 622 Tech workers with the 700mm visits noted. Can someone explain it to me? 622 * $124,584 [0] * 1.25 = $96,864,060/year Their CPM and CPC would need to be seriously fine tuned to sustain this. $5 per 1,000 visitors (CPM): they would need 19.37 billion ad impressions. Similar problem when calculating CPC with $0.10 to $2 range. I cannot see how they are still in business. [0] https://www.roberthalf.com/us/en/insights/career-development/tech-careers-and-salaries-in-new-york-city https://www.roberthalf.com/us/en/insights/career-development...

dwaltrip 2y ago
Don’t forget to include subscription revenue, also their extra offerings of games, cooking, etc
- mattdotc 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - shepherdjerred 2y ago
    What? The commenter approached this just fine. They didn't state anything as fact and asked for others to weigh in. This is completely reasonable in a discussion.
  - tomcam 2y ago
    Might want to reread https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and especially this section: In Comments Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes. Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

ETH_start 2y ago

[flagged]

SiempreViernes 2y ago
What happened to the police, did they resign their watchmen role?
- ETH_start 2y ago
  Police are enforcers. The watchmen in a democracy are principally journalists.
thinkingtoilet 2y ago
You think the unions own the paper? The editorial board? I have news for you, if there is bias it's not coming from the people not in control. It's coming from the ultra-wealthy people who own these media outlets and I promise you they are not pro-union.
- ETH_start 2y ago
  If the editorial board and these ultra-wealthy people want to stay on the good side of the news guild that all of their journalists are members of, then they have to be pro-union. They have to accept the very premise on which the laws that advantage unions were passed, which forces the employer to engage in collective bargaining with the union to the exclusion of all other parties. The pressure for the management at news media companies to pander to unions on these issues is enormous and inescapable.
advisedwang 2y ago
This union doesn't include the journalists anyway.

janalsncm 2y ago

It should tell you something that 95% of the union voted to strike. I found more information from them here: https://www.nyguild.org/post/new-york-times-tech-guild-votes-yes-to-strike https://www.nyguild.org/post/new-york-times-tech-guild-votes... I wonder how other news outlets will cover this, if at all. They’re probably afraid others will get the same idea.

sieabahlpark 2y ago
That lists the pay discrepancy but doesn't mention if there are literally any factors for the disparity such as role, responsibilities, performance, etc. It just mentions race, which gives me absolutely no usable information to give credibility. If we are to assume black and women workers have historically been missing entirely from tech then the efforts of recent initiatives would bring fresh people in? Those newer people wouldn't have the same length of professional experience but the expectation is to be paid equal? Put another way if the CEO is white and they make 50m and you have two employees, one black and one white who each make 50k, the average for white workers would be skewed higher? Before anyone replies "um actually, it's only workers within the guild, the CEO isn't included", okay, but does everyone in the guild have the same job title, experience, and responsibilities? As an aside, they've structured that website like trash. Yes, I'd love to click a link to see the pay study which is just duplicated below the link without any additional information. It's like they purposely are trying to say nothing but be loud.
aurareturn 2y ago
Isn’t it a little ironic that NY Times, and most east coast media, is very anti big tech and pro union while their own employees are protesting because of low wages? Who are they to judge how big tech treats their employees when they pay their own so poorly?
- ljlolel 2y ago
  They’re also incredibly non-diverse and complain about big tech being non-diverse.

Vosporos 2y ago

[flagged]

sensanaty 2y ago

Always love seeing the temporarily-embarassed-billionaire-CEO type on HN espousing anti-union views. Such a fascinating indoctrination happening there every time.

azemetre 2y ago
It's not hard to understand, this is a site where people champion working overtime hours for the chance at a lottery ticket or prefer working for companies that are destructive to society and anticompetitive.

skapadia 2y ago

Highly talented software engineers are still hard to find. If you find one, pay them well and do everything you can to retain them.

devwastaken 2y ago
This is because software dev is a volatile market. It doesn't matter how "talented" you are, it's about your rank in the social circles and it shows in the product. There is now far more devs than there is work for them. This is a planned strategy to reduce salaries. If you're "talented". Make your money and get out asap.
- goosejuice 2y ago
  Planned by whom?
  - zingababba 2y ago
    Them >_<
  - devwastaken 2y ago
    The tech cartel faang and adjacent. People talk to each other.
- datavirtue 2y ago
  This is what I preach to my kids. Get to work, live at home, save everything and invest. There is a huge difference between kids attitudes these days and those of the gen-x crowd. I loved my first jobs, they were so fun and people treated me very well. My children have dipped into the work force a bit and found it very nasty and hostile across various industries. My son trained as a machinist. A job that is very well suited to him. He asked for PPE (respirator, gloves) at his first job and was educating himself on the chemicals used in his area. After incurring chemical burns and respuratory issues he had them put the labels back on the barrels and again requested PPE. They threw him out on his ass, but not before attempting to humiliate and denigrate him. He is traumatized now and seeking disability benefits from the government. I don't have much to stand on when trying to convince him to keep trying.

_cs2017_ 2y ago

How much of a comp boost would an average NYT tech worker get if the union succeeded? Let's say 10% for the sake of the argument. Please correct me if I'm way off. Wouldn't they be able to get a much higher comp by interviewing with other local tech firms? If so, why don't they? Seems more effective than waiting and hoping for a small increase through the union.

xingped 2y ago
This is such a weird response. Do you collectively interview for other jobs? No. Would you tell any other union this? No. Collectively bargain for your current job and raise the standards for everyone now and in the future. I don't know why tech is so hyper-individualist.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  It doesn't raise standards. It squishes them at both ends, particularly the top. That might be what you want, but tech salaries have bloomed massively because there isn't a union. You might say "that's over; now let's lock in our massive salaries", but I doubt it'll work that way. Tech isn't hyper-individualist. It just leans slightly to the individual, because any half-decent tech worker is worth a lot to an organisation, and they don't need a union rep to negotiate on their (and hundreds of other people's) behalf.
  - triceratops 2y ago
    > tech salaries have bloomed massively because there isn't a union I presume you support free markets, so I'm surprised that supply and demand never crossed your mind as the reason for high tech salaries. Professional athletes, actors, and screenwriters enjoy both high salaries and union protections.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      > I'm surprised that supply and demand never crossed your mind as the reason for high tech salaries No need to be surprised - it more than crossed my mind. > Professional athletes, actors, and screenwriters enjoy both high salaries and union protections Well, screenwriters aren't in the same ballpark as the other two, but the highly paid athletes and actors are not having their wages negotiated by a union rep. They have agents. Most actors are barely paid anything, and have union membership.

marxisttemp 2y ago

Let’s all remember that the vast majority of programmers are not mathematicians, nor logicians, nor authors, we are tradespeople. And you’ll notice that tradespeople in almost every other industry unionize.

robertlagrant 2y ago
I don't understand - how are programmers different to logicians in a way that's relevant to this?
- marxisttemp 2y ago
  Very few programmers I know spend their time devising logical theorems. They spend their time plumbing and engineering systems.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    But how's that relevant to this?
    - enriquec 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
Workaccount2 2y ago
Programmers are white collar engineers, I think you are confused here. Doesn't mean they can't create/join a union, but they are not really in the tradesman category. White collar unions are much tinier.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

farceSpherule 2y ago

JFC... Let's just unionize every job...

ncr100 2y ago

Awesome news. In my experience, Mismanagement, both in personnel and compensation, seems to be commonplace, as corporations seek to lower costs in response to our changing economy. Corporations looking to find an advantage may shortchange employees, overwork them, and not train managers but rather expect everybody to "just work well together", deflecting responsibility. Unionizing provides a relief valve where unions can strongly argue for better working environments. The individual no longer has to have a half-baked idea and be afraid to raise it, for fear of retribution or simply for fear of being proven to be an impotent cog mating to a very large wheel.

umvi 2y ago
If you read books from the early 1900s (Radium Girls, Rocket Boys, Seabiscuit), it's painfully obvious to see how incredibly exploitative industries can become (literally working people to death) without something like a union to check corporate greed against worker well-being. It's a fine balance though. Unions are organizations very similar to companies and can fall victim to the same sins as exploitative companies (or worse, like in the 60s when the Teamsters Union became controlled by the mafia and was used to further organized crime goals)
- bad_user 2y ago
  It should also be painfully obvious that, during those times, the alternative — subsistence agriculture — was much worse, and people working in factories no longer starved. The industrial revolution, AKA "greed", has ended starvation and slavery, so when socialists of late 1800s or early 1900s talk of exploitation, that should raise an eyebrow. Unions are not similar to companies because they don't compete on the free market. For this reason, much like all state-funded institutions, unions are much more prone to corruption.
  - thierrydamiba 2y ago
    Just fyi the UN estimates 25,000 people die from hunger everyday and there are currently 50 million slaves around the world. Easy to forget but these things still exist.

Yawrehto 2y ago

I wonder how long it'll stay. The poor strikers at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette have been going for 22 months[1] (!) so far. It's impressive. Until then, they've set up the Pittsburgh Union-Progress.[2] What's weird is how no one seems to mention it, even in Pittsburgh. How can a strike go on for 22 months with (almost) no one noticing/caring? [1] https://www.unionprogress.com/2024/08/24/a-22-month-strike-journey-from-staring-sleepless-into-the-darkness-at-3-a-m-to-finding-hope/ https://www.unionprogress.com/2024/08/24/a-22-month-strike-j... [2] Which is somehow only one of several nonprofit news outlets covering Pittsburgh? Aside from the Union-Progress there's Publicsource, the Allegheny Front, WQED, WESA, the Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle, and the semi-local 100 Days in Appalachia, Belt Magazine, Spotlight PA. (As well as the just-closed Pittsburgh Institute for Nonprofit Journalism.) It feels weirdly disproportionate to its population. Is there any data on the cities most overrepresented in nonprofit news outlets covering them? Or just news outlets?

elzbardico 2y ago

I wonder how many workers actually voted for this. The list of demands is basically a crazy woke wishlist.

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago

As a former Sunday NYT subscriber I would like to see more pay go to hiring and retaining journalists and less to so-called "tech" workers. The web development nonsense has made the NYT worse, not better to this reader. Other readers may disagree.