6 ms·

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 t

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.
    - cool_dude85 2y ago
      No, once you have union representation here, the company can not legally negotiate individually with members. That's an unfair labor practice! What actually happens is prevailing trends basically continue. Management can still hire people, etc. but must continue more or less as before unless they are willing to negotiate those specific changes.
  - User23 2y ago
    Didn't you get an offer letter? I assume it stated the terms of your employment like the work expected, the consideration (compensation) to be provided, and, most likely, the at-will nature of the agreement. In this case "secure a contract" means terms that are somehow perceived as more favorable than employment-at-will.
  - ExoticPearTree 2y ago
    Basically it means they want job security no matter what.
xvector 2y ago
Those wages are absolutely not fair in the era of modern tech comp. But IMHO people should just find a different job, there are plenty available that pay better.
- arunabha 2y ago
  > But IMHO people should just find a different job, there are plenty available that pay better. Genuine question, why is that better? There are plenty of reasons why employees might be overall ok with the job and prefer to work out improvements in specific areas. The generally accepted implicit rationale of all of the accommodation needing to be done by the employees(including finding another job) is honestly puzzling. I'm wondering if that is the consequence of employers having vastly more power over employees(esp in the US, with healthcare being tied to employment) Should the default be a reasonable compromise between the two sides, vs the only recourse being employees leaving?
  - xvector 2y ago
    Unions are not effective at getting you to high comps. They will only get you to a middle of the road comp. The seniority based structure is effectively a penalty on high achievers. Why should a union member be paid more just because they've worked there longer? Big tech is a fantastic example of employment working without unions.
    - arunabha 2y ago
      But unions don't automatically imply seniority based wages, or even uniform wages. The SAG and the NFL players unions are the most obvious examples. Also the last two years should have taught the tech rank and file that the good times don't always last. As much as we'd like to believer we all are 10x rockstar devs, the reality is that an overwhelming majority are not. Further, even being the 'best of the best' engineer is no guarantee that you won't be screwed over by management. Woz is a highly visible example and I guarantee you that the odds of anyone on HN(let alone the overall tech industry) being a better engineer are essentially zero.
- 2y ago
javagram 2y ago
NYT is the premier digital news outlet. Why should a principal SWE there get paid less than a senior SWE working on Google News, for instance? If NYT has the money it makes sense to me for the employees to ask for higher pay. What else is the original purpose of unions than to give workers power to bargain with the company?
- hyperpape 2y ago
  > Why should a principal SWE there get paid less than a senior SWE working on Google News, for instance? https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=google+market+cap https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=google+ma...
- cvwright 2y ago
  I think the uncomfortable question for many here is, why should the SWE at Google get paid any more than the SWE at the NY Times?
  - ynx 2y ago
    That's not an uncomfortable question at all. SWE (and all employees) should be paid to the point that the owners of their company, while well-rewarded, are not sucking up a large percentage of global wealth personally...and that's the less adventurous answer.
    - ExoticPearTree 2y ago
      ... right, because people start companies out of their philanthropic desires. It is funny here how all the people are pro-union don't start their own companies to compete with the ones that exploit people and offer employees all the perks they ever dreamed of.
      - Workaccount2 2y ago
        It's even funnier when they do start their own company and immediately crank up the back-pedaling.
francisofascii 2y ago
I think the contention point is over remote work rights. I would gladly accept these salaries, but not if I have to commute into NYC almost every day.

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.
  - cool_dude85 2y ago
    No, once you have union representation here, the company can not legally negotiate individually with members. That's an unfair labor practice! What actually happens is prevailing trends basically continue. Management can still hire people, etc. but must continue more or less as before unless they are willing to negotiate those specific changes.
- User23 2y ago
  Didn't you get an offer letter? I assume it stated the terms of your employment like the work expected, the consideration (compensation) to be provided, and, most likely, the at-will nature of the agreement. In this case "secure a contract" means terms that are somehow perceived as more favorable than employment-at-will.
- ExoticPearTree 2y ago
  Basically it means they want job security no matter what.

xvector 2y ago

Those wages are absolutely not fair in the era of modern tech comp. But IMHO people should just find a different job, there are plenty available that pay better.

arunabha 2y ago
> But IMHO people should just find a different job, there are plenty available that pay better. Genuine question, why is that better? There are plenty of reasons why employees might be overall ok with the job and prefer to work out improvements in specific areas. The generally accepted implicit rationale of all of the accommodation needing to be done by the employees(including finding another job) is honestly puzzling. I'm wondering if that is the consequence of employers having vastly more power over employees(esp in the US, with healthcare being tied to employment) Should the default be a reasonable compromise between the two sides, vs the only recourse being employees leaving?
- xvector 2y ago
  Unions are not effective at getting you to high comps. They will only get you to a middle of the road comp. The seniority based structure is effectively a penalty on high achievers. Why should a union member be paid more just because they've worked there longer? Big tech is a fantastic example of employment working without unions.
  - arunabha 2y ago
    But unions don't automatically imply seniority based wages, or even uniform wages. The SAG and the NFL players unions are the most obvious examples. Also the last two years should have taught the tech rank and file that the good times don't always last. As much as we'd like to believer we all are 10x rockstar devs, the reality is that an overwhelming majority are not. Further, even being the 'best of the best' engineer is no guarantee that you won't be screwed over by management. Woz is a highly visible example and I guarantee you that the odds of anyone on HN(let alone the overall tech industry) being a better engineer are essentially zero.
2y ago

javagram 2y ago

NYT is the premier digital news outlet. Why should a principal SWE there get paid less than a senior SWE working on Google News, for instance? If NYT has the money it makes sense to me for the employees to ask for higher pay. What else is the original purpose of unions than to give workers power to bargain with the company?

hyperpape 2y ago
> Why should a principal SWE there get paid less than a senior SWE working on Google News, for instance? https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=google+market+cap https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=google+ma...
cvwright 2y ago
I think the uncomfortable question for many here is, why should the SWE at Google get paid any more than the SWE at the NY Times?
- ynx 2y ago
  That's not an uncomfortable question at all. SWE (and all employees) should be paid to the point that the owners of their company, while well-rewarded, are not sucking up a large percentage of global wealth personally...and that's the less adventurous answer.
  - ExoticPearTree 2y ago
    ... right, because people start companies out of their philanthropic desires. It is funny here how all the people are pro-union don't start their own companies to compete with the ones that exploit people and offer employees all the perks they ever dreamed of.
    - Workaccount2 2y ago
      It's even funnier when they do start their own company and immediately crank up the back-pedaling.

francisofascii 2y ago

I think the contention point is over remote work rights. I would gladly accept these salaries, but not if I have to commute into NYC almost every day.