6 ms·

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
              Yes not offering workers coffee could be considered exploitative in a hypothetical future, same as how not giving workers water and bathroom breaks and overtime pay is considered exploitative today while it was perfectly acceptable a few generations ago (and still is in plenty of cultures/jurisdictions).
            • pavel_lishin 2y ago
              In a Star Trek future, yes, refusing to allow a class of employee free use of the replicator would be considered exploitative. Why not? But instead of worrying about some far-off Magic Wish-Fulfillment Future, we could be discussing how they're actually be exploited now.
              • bee_rider 2y ago
                I wish everybody in this thread could have just said what their opinions were, instead of masking them behind increasingly leading and ridiculous rhetorical questions. I agree with you the exploitation should not be measured by some absolute bar based on the expectations of some lost past era with bad labor laws. But Star Trek hypotheticals could be the most productive perspective, could they?
        • toomuchtodo 2y ago
          > So as long as the level of exploitation decreases This Is America, so we have a long way to go in this regard. Attempting to denigrate this specific example of workers flexing their rights is anti worker rhetoric, plain and simple. Arguing over coffee is bikeshedding. If you as a worker don't have a union, you have no protections from an org, its management, and shareholders. If one does not support them, that's fine, support of the minority is not needed. Popular support for unions continues to be high (historically) @ ~70%, so Labor Mode continues. There is no other solution to the brutalist US labor market, from first principles. https://thehill.com/business/4854173-union-approval-surges-post-strikes/ https://thehill.com/business/4854173-union-approval-surges-p... https://news.gallup.com/poll/12751/labor-unions.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/12751/labor-unions.aspx https://striketracker.ilr.cornell.edu/ https://striketracker.ilr.cornell.edu/
      • Manuel_D 2y ago
        Exploitation involves some level of unfairness, deceptiveness, or coercion. How are NYT employees being exploited? I could think of some scenarios: e.g. being hired with the promise of indefinite remote work and subsequently being given an RTO mandate. But I haven't seen any such situation at the Times described. Overall, it's hard to exploit a workforce that is in high demand. Oftentimes people talk about "exploitation" when industries can pay less than average wages because of some unique draw to that industry. For example, game development is known for subpar wages and long hours. But people are willing to take those jobs because of the allure of being a video game developer instead of a typical software developer. Some would call this exploitation, but it's a misuse of that term. The workers chose to accept the job at the compensation offered, and if they took a salary cut to work on games that's their prerogative - not exploitation. I think it's likely that this is the latter situation. The NYTimes is a household name, and is a big draw for workers. Because of that prestige, they're able to meet their personnel requirements without competitive salaries.
    • glimshe 2y ago
      I'm not familiar with regulations on strikes, if any. That aside, you don't need to be exploited to have a moral reason to go on strike. A strike is roughly equivalent to a mass layoff, but from the employee side. We hear often how employers can let people go "for no reason, at any time", so the same should apply to employees. Employees can "let go" of the employer for no reason, at any time, and agree or not to "rehire" the employer "at will". Please note that I'm not supporting or criticizing this particular strike. I'm just saying that if we understand unions (at least voluntary ones) as a way to increase employees' bargaining power, they should be able to engage in cutthroat, "Greed is good" negotiation under free markets; all they need is to feel that they can get more, irrespective of what they have.
  • hungie 2y ago
    Absolute hogwash. The existence of people being exploited more does not mean that people being exploited less are not being exploited. Like, yes, these workers are probably in better conditions than many global workers. But that doesn't mean the NYT isn't exploiting them. Also, consider showing some solidarity -- these people are workers, and have more in common with other workers than they have different. Support their strike, and expect them to support yours. Or at the very least support them advocating for better working conditions and expect they will support you in improving your workplace.
    • ExoticPearTree 2y ago
      As long as they're not forced to work, I don't see how NYT is exploiting them. What harsh working conditions are they working under that makes their situation so untenable at NYT but aren't willing to go looking for better conditions elsewhere?
      • hungie 2y ago
        They sure are forced to work. I don't know of a way to survive without working.
        • ExoticPearTree 2y ago
          Trustfund inheritance comes to mind ;)
  • vundercind 2y ago
    This is the beginning of an argument that ends in “US workers aren’t exploited—all of them are better off than nearly any worker in Sierra Leone!” You can always (in a country like the US) find a group somewhere so much worse off that you can use them to paint US workers as greedy or spoiled. The connection of these facts to exploitation is tenuous in this context, but it does make for good rhetoric.
  • hungie 2y ago
    They are producing value for the NYT, but only being paid a fraction of that value. Labor is entitled to all the value it creates.
• shagie 2y ago
  What would be more equitable? https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=New+York+Times&assumption=%7B%22C%22%2C+%22New+York+Times%22%7D+-%3E+%7B%22Financial%22%7D https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=New+York+Times&assumpti... puts the revenue per employee at $422,656. They've got 5900 employees and https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/07/business/media/new-york-times-earnings.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/07/business/media/new-york-t... says a quarterly profit of $104.7 million. $400M / 5900 gives about $68,000 profit per employee. So, what's reasonable? Would giving everyone a $65k pay raise and zeroing out the profit for the company be correct? Would that put them close to what they'd get if they worked in big tech? ( https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%28Apple%2C+Meta%2C+GOOG%2C+Netflix%29+revenue+per+employee https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%28Apple%2C+Meta%2C+GOO... ). We're dealing with very different numbers there.
  • Clubber 2y ago
    Union negotiation isn't always about money, though it is usually part of it. It's also about working conditions and benefits. Also you can get a raise without "costing" anything extra in the expense column, such as fewer working hours for the same pay/benefits.
    • shagie 2y ago
      There are potentially many reasonable things to negotiate for. So far, all the information I can find is "stalled contract negotiations". Working without a contract is a perfectly valid reason to strike. Things like making sure that AI isn't used in certain capacities to reduce the staff size wouldn't be unreasonable. As of yet, the contents of the negotiation aren't public - so we can only guess. In the meantime, the idea that everyone should be able to make Big Tech wages ignores the reality that most companies aren't Big Tech and have a revenue per employee that is a small fraction of it... and are running on much slimmer profit margins.
      • morgante 2y ago
        > Things like making sure that AI isn't used in certain capacities to reduce the staff size wouldn't be unreasonable. Yes it would. Explicitly demanding inefficiency is exactly why unions are terrible for innovation and progress.
• ugh123 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • forty 2y ago
    Maybe this industry as a whole is driven by capitalists who all have a common interest in taking a bigger share of the pie than they deserve? :) ie it's not because you are well paid that you are paid enough or fairly
    • golergka 2y ago
      Workers also have a common interest to take a bigger share of the pie that they deserve. Everybody has this interest. It doesn't make any side of the labor market moral or immoral, its just how any market works, and that's absolutely alright.
      • forty 2y ago
        That would be absolutely alright if we all had the same cards at the beginning of the game. The result is there some people take large part of the pie while not contributing to the baking in any meaningful way. Doesn't seem fair to me
  • consteval 2y ago
    These "X has it worse" arguments are tiresome and lack any sort of rigor. There's modern day slavery in the world. Today. Even in the US we have compelled labor - it's a whole thing in the Georgia prison system. Those McDonald's burger flippers are essentially slaves, and I bet you didn't know that. But if we subscribe to the ideology of "X has it worse" nothing would get done, ever. The reality is even in seemingly prosperous industries workers, laborers, DO NOT have equal leverage in negotiations. Not even close. What you're describing is relying on the generosity of the corporations who employ them. A fine strategy, but hardly sustainable. They, too, can look to improve their situation.
    • ugh123 2y ago
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]