6 ms·

> the article doesn't make clear what the issues with it are? What is not clear? The article tells that the issues are contention around return to office polic

> the article doesn't make clear what the issues with it are? What is not clear? The article tells that the issues are contention around return to office policies (as your quote tells, change is planned for July) and wanting a “just cause” provision.

mellosouls 2y ago
But it's a reasonable offer, there is no clarity in the article about exactly what is so bad they need to strike. Eg if they said we haven't had a pay rise for ten years, that would provide context. Nothing in the article gives a justification for a strike. That's not to say the justification doesn't exist but it's not remotely elucidated.
- miltonlost 2y ago
  You find it reasonable. THe union, and I, do not find a RTO announcement in June (or anytime really) to be a reasonable request. So yes, the article justified the strike. You just don't think the justification is reasonable.
  - DoneWithAllThat 2y ago
    You don’t think it’s reasonable to tell your employees that as a condition of employment they have to be at a specific location at specific times?
    - randomdata 2y ago
      Of course it is reasonable. But it is equally reasonable for workers, as a condition of employment, to be able to work remotely. Everyone gets to choose what they want for themselves. If an agreement can't be made... Oh well.
    - miltonlost 2y ago
      If they are tech workers who only need a laptop and can work remotely 3 days a week normally, and therefore 5 as well? Yes, its unreasonable as their specific location at a specific time is unnecessary. If you don't need to be physically present to work, then it is unreasonable to force someone to relocate or to come into an office. Is it reasonable to tell your factory worker employees that they have to be at the factory at certain times? Yes, that's reasonable because these workers must be physically there. Using broad words like "employees" and "employment" simplifies your thinking.
      - jajko 2y ago
        But you have no idea about internals of NYT, do you? You have no idea whats reasonable and whats not in their team. BTW why people create a new accounts just to furiously comment all over pretty basic topics like this? Are you really that ashamed of your own opinions (which are still anonymous) or you feel your employer may trace you back? Or NYT employee?
        miltonlost 2y ago
        And you do know what's reasonable? I'm gonna side with the union and not the company owned by a billionaire
        dakiol 2y ago
        It's not about the internals of NYT. It's 2024, WFH should be already a non-negotiable perk for tech employees because: - the tech is there to offer this kind of work. It's not that NYT is somehow special about this - it's better for the employees. Would we be in favour of companies asking to work 80h/week as a normal thing? Would we be in favour of companies asking to work 6 days per week? Maybe 100 years ago, but in 2024 the answer is (or should be) no. Why? Because we as employees have gained some rights over the last decades to make things better for ourselves. WFH is one more right in that list and shouldn't be taken as a privilege I'm amazed by the people who are bashing against WFH. This is not about the free market, this is about moving the human race in the right direction.
        2y ago
    - chimeracoder 2y ago
      > You don’t think it’s reasonable to tell your employees that as a condition of employment they have to be at a specific location at specific times? You think it's reasonable to hire someone remotely, then later forcibly relocate them to another, more expensive city, with no compensation? Because that's what's happened here. In jurisdictions with stronger labor laws, that is not only not reasonable, but outright illegal (constructive termination).
    - janalsncm 2y ago
      It’s a negotiation. What is reasonable is for the two parties to determine. But it’s not crazy to imagine. This is not Walter White asking to work remotely from a professional-grade chemistry lab. These are tech workers who can carry the professional-grade equipment in their backpacks.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      I think different levels of "reasonable" are being mixed up here. By the normal definition, it's a reasonable thing for an employer to want, and a reasonable thing for an employee to not want. But if we're treating "reasonable" and "strikeworthy" as opposites, then sure it can be "unreasonable".
- randomdata 2y ago
  > Eg if they said we haven't had a pay rise for ten years, that would provide context. That wouldn't provide any kind of justification either, though. All it might indicate is that they desire more pay, just as we know here that they desire a different policy around remote work and desire a “just cause” provision. And it seems that is the motivation – simply that they want it. Which is all the justification that is needed. One does not have to work if they don't want to. It is up to the NYT to decide if it wants to compel them to or not.
- kortilla 2y ago
  They don’t think RTO is reasonable, which is a completely logical stance to take if you’ve setup your life working from home (esp if it’s hours from the office).
  - jajko 2y ago
    ... which is something people did on their own, without agreeing with their employers on duration etc. I love working from home, but its just a non-guaranteed perk that can go away anytime and eventually it will, and companies shouldn't break their backs to accommodate people. There is free job market to match one's expectations, triple especially in places like New York. I really, really don't get folks who setup their lives in the middle of nowhere to save some bucks and then they complain that world and work doesn't come to their doorstep. You took the risk in maybe unclear situation, you bear the consequences if the risk doesn't pan out your way.
    - everforward 2y ago
      > and companies shouldn't break their backs to accommodate people. Why isn't the inverse equally true? That workers shouldn't have to break their back to accommodate a change in company policy? > You took the risk in maybe unclear situation, you bear the consequences if the risk doesn't pan out your way. Again, I think this is equally true going the other way. Companies allowed their workers to move away from the office, why don't they assume any risk that workers won't want to return? I get that there needs to be a balance of power, but I don't understand why any request from the company is valid by default and any request by workers is somehow an imposition that the workers need to justify. Why isn't the company asked to justify why workers need to RTO?
      - randomdata 2y ago
        > Why isn't the company asked to justify why workers need to RTO? Well, we do know the state of New York offered the NYT (among others) tax incentives/subsidies earlier in the year. I can't imagine the state of New York will be happy if the workforce works from New Jersey (or Texas). Calling upon the workers to work in New York gives the state the economic activity it expects in return for the subsidies it offered. But does that make any difference to the workers? If they want to work remotely, whatever reason the NYT has is not their problem.

mellosouls 2y ago

But it's a reasonable offer, there is no clarity in the article about exactly what is so bad they need to strike. Eg if they said we haven't had a pay rise for ten years, that would provide context. Nothing in the article gives a justification for a strike. That's not to say the justification doesn't exist but it's not remotely elucidated.

miltonlost 2y ago
You find it reasonable. THe union, and I, do not find a RTO announcement in June (or anytime really) to be a reasonable request. So yes, the article justified the strike. You just don't think the justification is reasonable.
- DoneWithAllThat 2y ago
  You don’t think it’s reasonable to tell your employees that as a condition of employment they have to be at a specific location at specific times?
  - randomdata 2y ago
    Of course it is reasonable. But it is equally reasonable for workers, as a condition of employment, to be able to work remotely. Everyone gets to choose what they want for themselves. If an agreement can't be made... Oh well.
  - miltonlost 2y ago
    If they are tech workers who only need a laptop and can work remotely 3 days a week normally, and therefore 5 as well? Yes, its unreasonable as their specific location at a specific time is unnecessary. If you don't need to be physically present to work, then it is unreasonable to force someone to relocate or to come into an office. Is it reasonable to tell your factory worker employees that they have to be at the factory at certain times? Yes, that's reasonable because these workers must be physically there. Using broad words like "employees" and "employment" simplifies your thinking.
    - jajko 2y ago
      But you have no idea about internals of NYT, do you? You have no idea whats reasonable and whats not in their team. BTW why people create a new accounts just to furiously comment all over pretty basic topics like this? Are you really that ashamed of your own opinions (which are still anonymous) or you feel your employer may trace you back? Or NYT employee?
      - miltonlost 2y ago
        And you do know what's reasonable? I'm gonna side with the union and not the company owned by a billionaire
      - dakiol 2y ago
        It's not about the internals of NYT. It's 2024, WFH should be already a non-negotiable perk for tech employees because: - the tech is there to offer this kind of work. It's not that NYT is somehow special about this - it's better for the employees. Would we be in favour of companies asking to work 80h/week as a normal thing? Would we be in favour of companies asking to work 6 days per week? Maybe 100 years ago, but in 2024 the answer is (or should be) no. Why? Because we as employees have gained some rights over the last decades to make things better for ourselves. WFH is one more right in that list and shouldn't be taken as a privilege I'm amazed by the people who are bashing against WFH. This is not about the free market, this is about moving the human race in the right direction.
        2y ago
  - chimeracoder 2y ago
    > You don’t think it’s reasonable to tell your employees that as a condition of employment they have to be at a specific location at specific times? You think it's reasonable to hire someone remotely, then later forcibly relocate them to another, more expensive city, with no compensation? Because that's what's happened here. In jurisdictions with stronger labor laws, that is not only not reasonable, but outright illegal (constructive termination).
  - janalsncm 2y ago
    It’s a negotiation. What is reasonable is for the two parties to determine. But it’s not crazy to imagine. This is not Walter White asking to work remotely from a professional-grade chemistry lab. These are tech workers who can carry the professional-grade equipment in their backpacks.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    I think different levels of "reasonable" are being mixed up here. By the normal definition, it's a reasonable thing for an employer to want, and a reasonable thing for an employee to not want. But if we're treating "reasonable" and "strikeworthy" as opposites, then sure it can be "unreasonable".
randomdata 2y ago
> Eg if they said we haven't had a pay rise for ten years, that would provide context. That wouldn't provide any kind of justification either, though. All it might indicate is that they desire more pay, just as we know here that they desire a different policy around remote work and desire a “just cause” provision. And it seems that is the motivation – simply that they want it. Which is all the justification that is needed. One does not have to work if they don't want to. It is up to the NYT to decide if it wants to compel them to or not.
kortilla 2y ago
They don’t think RTO is reasonable, which is a completely logical stance to take if you’ve setup your life working from home (esp if it’s hours from the office).
- jajko 2y ago
  ... which is something people did on their own, without agreeing with their employers on duration etc. I love working from home, but its just a non-guaranteed perk that can go away anytime and eventually it will, and companies shouldn't break their backs to accommodate people. There is free job market to match one's expectations, triple especially in places like New York. I really, really don't get folks who setup their lives in the middle of nowhere to save some bucks and then they complain that world and work doesn't come to their doorstep. You took the risk in maybe unclear situation, you bear the consequences if the risk doesn't pan out your way.
  - everforward 2y ago
    > and companies shouldn't break their backs to accommodate people. Why isn't the inverse equally true? That workers shouldn't have to break their back to accommodate a change in company policy? > You took the risk in maybe unclear situation, you bear the consequences if the risk doesn't pan out your way. Again, I think this is equally true going the other way. Companies allowed their workers to move away from the office, why don't they assume any risk that workers won't want to return? I get that there needs to be a balance of power, but I don't understand why any request from the company is valid by default and any request by workers is somehow an imposition that the workers need to justify. Why isn't the company asked to justify why workers need to RTO?
    - randomdata 2y ago
      > Why isn't the company asked to justify why workers need to RTO? Well, we do know the state of New York offered the NYT (among others) tax incentives/subsidies earlier in the year. I can't imagine the state of New York will be happy if the workforce works from New Jersey (or Texas). Calling upon the workers to work in New York gives the state the economic activity it expects in return for the subsidies it offered. But does that make any difference to the workers? If they want to work remotely, whatever reason the NYT has is not their problem.