5 ms·

They're striking against return to office? I work from home and value it but it never would occur to me to strike for that. I view it as a privilege and not a r

They're striking against return to office? I work from home and value it but it never would occur to me to strike for that. I view it as a privilege and not a right. Almost everyone in the world has to go on location for their jobs. I am curious why it is so important to NYT workers in particular that they would strike over it - is there something particularly bad about the location?

nine_k 2y ago
A privilege is given, a right is taken. If enough people fight for the recognition of their need and desire to work from home, enough to enshrine it in some legal norms or at least in widely accepted and expected practices in the industry, WFH may become a right. This is how 40-hour work weeks became a right, or collective bargaining became a right, etc.
- randomdata 2y ago
  > This is how 40-hour work weeks became a right It became a standard in the US, but is not a right. And while the idea of the 40-hour work week did, indeed, come from labour groups, it was the Great Depression needing effort to try and compel businesses to hire more workers, not the fight of workers, that pushed to see it become a standard.
  - nine_k 2y ago
    That might be the final chord, but the tune started back in the 18th century, as a long struggle: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day_movement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day_movement It wasn't a sudden bout of benevolnce from the FDR administration, or from anyone in the management or government.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      > It wasn't a sudden bout of benevolnce from the FDR administration Was there something to suggest it was? Getting workers back working isn't for the benefit of workers.
      - nine_k 2y ago
        How about letting them earn wages which they otherwise would not?
        randomdata 2y ago
        A wage is debt, so not beneficial in and of itself. It can be beneficial when you call the debt and turn it into something tangible (e.g. food), of course, but that is also of benefit to the business who derives joy in giving you that food. It is not for the benefit of workers. It is for the benefit of everyone.
rty32 2y ago
It is one of the many things they strike against, and I imagine it's not the most important issue and they are willing to compromise on. Also a reminder that just a few years ago, CEOs thought remote work was good, everyone was productive, and they didn't see how they wanted to force everybody back. No, it's not a privilege, it's just how you get work done.
adventured 2y ago
> Almost everyone in the world has to go on location for their jobs I think it's fair to point out that progressive worker rights acquisition would initially always be a small case minority context (vs the vast majority that would lack those rights). In the distant past almost everyone in the world lacked xyz worker rights.
criddell 2y ago
> I view it as a privilege and not a right. I'd call it a perk or benefit. It's like health insurance or vacation time. You may not have a right to it, but it's upsetting when you lose it. When an employer takes away something you have a right to, you don't strike, you sue.
Cthulhu_ 2y ago
Have you got a family? How long is your commute? What did you (and your family) gain from the move to WFH? Speaking for myself I gained over two hours of free time a day and a lot less stress from traffic. I wouldn't mind so much if my office was in walking or cycling distance, but living where you work is rare in this field.
lolinder 2y ago
I would totally join a strike against RTO if I were in a union or if someone organized one in response. The only other option for me would be to quit and look for another remote job. I'm not going back to having to bring earmuffs and blast music all day just to have any hope of getting anything done, I'm not starting a commute, and I'm not sacrificing lunches with my kids for some executive's opinion about how I ought to collaborate most effectively.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
rsynnott 2y ago
> They're striking against return to office? I work from home and value it but it never would occur to me to strike for that. I view it as a privilege and not a right Meanwhile in the early 20th century: > They're striking over a weekend? I work five days a week and value it but it never would occur to me to strike for that. I view it as a privilege and not a right Like, this is generally how it goes; workers' rights are generally won, not granted by divine authority.
- bloomingkales 2y ago
  Let’s not forget they fought for the 8-hour work day too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day_movement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day_movement In the United States, Philadelphia carpenters went on strike in 1791 for the ten-hour day. By the 1830s, this had become a general demand. In 1835, workers in Philadelphia organised the 1835 Philadelphia general strike, the first general strike in North America, led by Irish coal heavers. Their banners read, From 6 to 6, ten hours work and two hours for meals.[37] Labor movement publications called for an eight-hour day as early as 1836. Boston ship carpenters, although not unionized, achieved an eight-hour day in 1842.
- Izkata 2y ago
  Except it didn't exactly work out like that, companies were constantly looking for loopholes to avoid it and it didn't become normalized until the Henry Ford did it voluntarily for capitalist reasons and it payed off.
JD557 2y ago
> I work from home and value it but it never would occur to me to strike for that. I believe that the value from WFH varies a lot from person to person. If you were working from the office before and the company changed to a WFH policy, you might see it as a nice to have. You already made some life choices to accommodate going to the office. Maybe you even go to the office anyway. But, if you were hired when the company already had WFH, you probably made some life choices based on that (buying a house far away from the city, having kids, not buying a car,...). In that case, mandatory RTO is a complete disaster (especially with the housing crisis) and you pretty much have no option other than resigning. I assume NYT was doing WFH since ~2020, so a lot of employees probably took decisions based on WFH, therefore the strikes.
dfxm12 2y ago
One of the things they're striking against is arbitrary return to office mandates. Why did you leave off two words that change the nature of what they're fighting for? Other folks have already pointed out the "rights" unions have fought for that we take for granted today. On top of that, being in a union is about solidarity with your fellow workers. You can support your coworkers' who need or just want to work from home. This should be easy, since it would affect you in approximately zero ways. They'll have your back for fighting for Just Cause protections.
- randomdata 2y ago
  > One of the things they're striking against is arbitrary return to office mandates. If it is arbitrary, why is the NYT seemingly standing firm on the issue? As the article tells, NYT have agreed to a seven month grace period to give workers a chance to get their houses in order. That is not indicative of an arbitrary move. Perhaps you mean they are striking against mandates that are motivated by undisclosed reasons?
  - dfxm12 2y ago
    If it is arbitrary, why is the NYT seemingly standing firm on the issue? You'll have to ask NYT management if you're curious why they're doing something. I can venture a guess though. A lot of companies use RTO mandates as a way to avoid layoffs (and the negative press and severance requirements that come with them). This seems to go hand in hand with the demand for "just cause". As the article tells, NYT have agreed to a seven month grace period to give workers a chance to get their houses in order. That is not indicative of an arbitrary move. This doesn't follow.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      > You'll have to ask NYT management if you're curious why they're doing something. I don't have to ask them anything if they are truly doing it arbitrarily. That's the answer. But the question is if you are confusing "arbitrary" with "not knowing". Which is I guess I am to take that the answer is yes, that you are confused, since you admit to not knowing – which means you can't know that it is arbitrary. How did you end up so confused? > This doesn't follow. If it is arbitrary, why not institute it today on a whim (strike notwithstanding)? Why wait? This indicates that there is planning involved, which suggests that it isn't arbitrary. It does not prove it without a doubt, but when playing the odds…
gaws 2y ago
> I am curious why it is so important to NYT workers in particular that they would strike over it - is there something particularly bad about the location? You're aware that NYC is an extremely expensive place to live, right?

nine_k 2y ago

A privilege is given, a right is taken. If enough people fight for the recognition of their need and desire to work from home, enough to enshrine it in some legal norms or at least in widely accepted and expected practices in the industry, WFH may become a right. This is how 40-hour work weeks became a right, or collective bargaining became a right, etc.

randomdata 2y ago
> This is how 40-hour work weeks became a right It became a standard in the US, but is not a right. And while the idea of the 40-hour work week did, indeed, come from labour groups, it was the Great Depression needing effort to try and compel businesses to hire more workers, not the fight of workers, that pushed to see it become a standard.
- nine_k 2y ago
  That might be the final chord, but the tune started back in the 18th century, as a long struggle: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day_movement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day_movement It wasn't a sudden bout of benevolnce from the FDR administration, or from anyone in the management or government.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    > It wasn't a sudden bout of benevolnce from the FDR administration Was there something to suggest it was? Getting workers back working isn't for the benefit of workers.
    - nine_k 2y ago
      How about letting them earn wages which they otherwise would not?
      - randomdata 2y ago
        A wage is debt, so not beneficial in and of itself. It can be beneficial when you call the debt and turn it into something tangible (e.g. food), of course, but that is also of benefit to the business who derives joy in giving you that food. It is not for the benefit of workers. It is for the benefit of everyone.

rty32 2y ago

It is one of the many things they strike against, and I imagine it's not the most important issue and they are willing to compromise on. Also a reminder that just a few years ago, CEOs thought remote work was good, everyone was productive, and they didn't see how they wanted to force everybody back. No, it's not a privilege, it's just how you get work done.

adventured 2y ago

> Almost everyone in the world has to go on location for their jobs I think it's fair to point out that progressive worker rights acquisition would initially always be a small case minority context (vs the vast majority that would lack those rights). In the distant past almost everyone in the world lacked xyz worker rights.

criddell 2y ago

> I view it as a privilege and not a right. I'd call it a perk or benefit. It's like health insurance or vacation time. You may not have a right to it, but it's upsetting when you lose it. When an employer takes away something you have a right to, you don't strike, you sue.

Cthulhu_ 2y ago

Have you got a family? How long is your commute? What did you (and your family) gain from the move to WFH? Speaking for myself I gained over two hours of free time a day and a lot less stress from traffic. I wouldn't mind so much if my office was in walking or cycling distance, but living where you work is rare in this field.

lolinder 2y ago

I would totally join a strike against RTO if I were in a union or if someone organized one in response. The only other option for me would be to quit and look for another remote job. I'm not going back to having to bring earmuffs and blast music all day just to have any hope of getting anything done, I'm not starting a commute, and I'm not sacrificing lunches with my kids for some executive's opinion about how I ought to collaborate most effectively.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

rsynnott 2y ago

> They're striking against return to office? I work from home and value it but it never would occur to me to strike for that. I view it as a privilege and not a right Meanwhile in the early 20th century: > They're striking over a weekend? I work five days a week and value it but it never would occur to me to strike for that. I view it as a privilege and not a right Like, this is generally how it goes; workers' rights are generally won, not granted by divine authority.

bloomingkales 2y ago
Let’s not forget they fought for the 8-hour work day too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day_movement https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day_movement In the United States, Philadelphia carpenters went on strike in 1791 for the ten-hour day. By the 1830s, this had become a general demand. In 1835, workers in Philadelphia organised the 1835 Philadelphia general strike, the first general strike in North America, led by Irish coal heavers. Their banners read, From 6 to 6, ten hours work and two hours for meals.[37] Labor movement publications called for an eight-hour day as early as 1836. Boston ship carpenters, although not unionized, achieved an eight-hour day in 1842.
Izkata 2y ago
Except it didn't exactly work out like that, companies were constantly looking for loopholes to avoid it and it didn't become normalized until the Henry Ford did it voluntarily for capitalist reasons and it payed off.

JD557 2y ago

> I work from home and value it but it never would occur to me to strike for that. I believe that the value from WFH varies a lot from person to person. If you were working from the office before and the company changed to a WFH policy, you might see it as a nice to have. You already made some life choices to accommodate going to the office. Maybe you even go to the office anyway. But, if you were hired when the company already had WFH, you probably made some life choices based on that (buying a house far away from the city, having kids, not buying a car,...). In that case, mandatory RTO is a complete disaster (especially with the housing crisis) and you pretty much have no option other than resigning. I assume NYT was doing WFH since ~2020, so a lot of employees probably took decisions based on WFH, therefore the strikes.

dfxm12 2y ago

One of the things they're striking against is arbitrary return to office mandates. Why did you leave off two words that change the nature of what they're fighting for? Other folks have already pointed out the "rights" unions have fought for that we take for granted today. On top of that, being in a union is about solidarity with your fellow workers. You can support your coworkers' who need or just want to work from home. This should be easy, since it would affect you in approximately zero ways. They'll have your back for fighting for Just Cause protections.

randomdata 2y ago
> One of the things they're striking against is arbitrary return to office mandates. If it is arbitrary, why is the NYT seemingly standing firm on the issue? As the article tells, NYT have agreed to a seven month grace period to give workers a chance to get their houses in order. That is not indicative of an arbitrary move. Perhaps you mean they are striking against mandates that are motivated by undisclosed reasons?
- dfxm12 2y ago
  If it is arbitrary, why is the NYT seemingly standing firm on the issue? You'll have to ask NYT management if you're curious why they're doing something. I can venture a guess though. A lot of companies use RTO mandates as a way to avoid layoffs (and the negative press and severance requirements that come with them). This seems to go hand in hand with the demand for "just cause". As the article tells, NYT have agreed to a seven month grace period to give workers a chance to get their houses in order. That is not indicative of an arbitrary move. This doesn't follow.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    > You'll have to ask NYT management if you're curious why they're doing something. I don't have to ask them anything if they are truly doing it arbitrarily. That's the answer. But the question is if you are confusing "arbitrary" with "not knowing". Which is I guess I am to take that the answer is yes, that you are confused, since you admit to not knowing – which means you can't know that it is arbitrary. How did you end up so confused? > This doesn't follow. If it is arbitrary, why not institute it today on a whim (strike notwithstanding)? Why wait? This indicates that there is planning involved, which suggests that it isn't arbitrary. It does not prove it without a doubt, but when playing the odds…

gaws 2y ago

> I am curious why it is so important to NYT workers in particular that they would strike over it - is there something particularly bad about the location? You're aware that NYC is an extremely expensive place to live, right?