3 ms·

This strike seems very poorly messaged. As far as I can tell, the union hasn't given any public explanation of what specific demands management won't meet. The

This strike seems very poorly messaged. As far as I can tell, the union hasn't given any public explanation of what specific demands management won't meet. The union website doesn't even mention that they're on strike!

davidw 2y ago
Here's one from me: down with "the needle"!
cooljacob204 2y ago
It's a very young union, started in 2021.
bee_rider 2y ago
> Negotiations between it and the Times hit logjams over things like a “just cause” provision that prevents the company from firing workers unless it’s for something like misconduct, as well as pay increases, pay equity, and return-to-office policies, reports the Times. https://www.theverge.com/2024/11/4/24287600/new-york-times-tech-guild-strike-before-presidential-election https://www.theverge.com/2024/11/4/24287600/new-york-times-t... I dunno. It is a negotiation between the union and the company. They might not have prepared much marketing material because they aren’t really selling anything to those of us in the general public, right?
- SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
  Interesting. I spot checked the Boeing strike, and it does seem like unions often aren't too specific about their demands in public. I guess a lot of stuff that I thought came from unions is actually coming from internal reports like this.
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    I know some folks who’ve done union organizing a bit, although I’m personally not that interested in it, so take this with a HUGE grain of salt. But I think appealing to the general public is a tool in the toolset, something they consider, but not an automatic go-to. Ultimately, the NYT tech guild doesn’t actually want the general public to think their boss is a “bad guy,” right? Like, getting the general public to boycott their employer too effectively is a risk to their own paychecks, haha.
    - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
      That's true, makes perfect sense.
- 9dev 2y ago
  As a foreigner it’s so alien to me that such a provision isn’t mandated by law anyway, and that there isn’t broad support in the population to restrict employers from firing at will… wild.
  - gcr 2y ago
    Exactly! US workers have to fight tooth and nail for things that employees can just expect from other countries. That's why strikes like this are such a big deal.
  - jdross 2y ago
    because working with poor performing coworkers is soul crushing, and having a bad boss even worse
  - chis 2y ago
    An an American it's hard for me to imagine how companies could ever work with universal protections from firing at will. What if you're running a painting business, and there's a downturn in construction. Do you just have to pay people to do nothing, since they haven't done anything wrong and aren't allowed to be fired? Or what if a large company needs to make a strategic pivot and fire some employees to hire others with a different skillset. It seems like economists do consider this to be one of the big reasons why the U.S. economy has grown so much faster than the EU. Hiring in Europe is much riskier, so companies would rather stay small.
    - hamandcheese 2y ago
      In all those cases, it sounds like the company would actually suffer the consequences of their prior mismanagement (compared to today where mostly just employees suffer from bad management decisions). Yes, that means some companies might go under when they could have saved themselves by mass layoffs. I'd be okay with that trade. Yes, that means growth might slow down to more reasonable levels. I'd be okay with that trade. Europe isn't booming economically like the US, but if you've ever traveled there, their quality of life seems perfectly fine, and costs are much lower.
- 111111IIIIIII 2y ago
  [dead]
- potato3732842 2y ago
  > They might not have prepared much marketing material because they aren’t really selling anything to those of us in the general public, right? NYT isn't a highly regulated interstate employer like Boeing or the rail industry or the dockworkers so it's dispute with the union isn't a de-facto matter of national politics like those strikes were so appealing to the public to have a particular opinion on the matter is not of as much use therefore neither side of this dispute has invested heavily in it.

davidw 2y ago

Here's one from me: down with "the needle"!

cooljacob204 2y ago

It's a very young union, started in 2021.

bee_rider 2y ago

> Negotiations between it and the Times hit logjams over things like a “just cause” provision that prevents the company from firing workers unless it’s for something like misconduct, as well as pay increases, pay equity, and return-to-office policies, reports the Times. https://www.theverge.com/2024/11/4/24287600/new-york-times-tech-guild-strike-before-presidential-election https://www.theverge.com/2024/11/4/24287600/new-york-times-t... I dunno. It is a negotiation between the union and the company. They might not have prepared much marketing material because they aren’t really selling anything to those of us in the general public, right?

SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
Interesting. I spot checked the Boeing strike, and it does seem like unions often aren't too specific about their demands in public. I guess a lot of stuff that I thought came from unions is actually coming from internal reports like this.
- bee_rider 2y ago
  I know some folks who’ve done union organizing a bit, although I’m personally not that interested in it, so take this with a HUGE grain of salt. But I think appealing to the general public is a tool in the toolset, something they consider, but not an automatic go-to. Ultimately, the NYT tech guild doesn’t actually want the general public to think their boss is a “bad guy,” right? Like, getting the general public to boycott their employer too effectively is a risk to their own paychecks, haha.
  - SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
    That's true, makes perfect sense.
9dev 2y ago
As a foreigner it’s so alien to me that such a provision isn’t mandated by law anyway, and that there isn’t broad support in the population to restrict employers from firing at will… wild.
- gcr 2y ago
  Exactly! US workers have to fight tooth and nail for things that employees can just expect from other countries. That's why strikes like this are such a big deal.
- jdross 2y ago
  because working with poor performing coworkers is soul crushing, and having a bad boss even worse
- chis 2y ago
  An an American it's hard for me to imagine how companies could ever work with universal protections from firing at will. What if you're running a painting business, and there's a downturn in construction. Do you just have to pay people to do nothing, since they haven't done anything wrong and aren't allowed to be fired? Or what if a large company needs to make a strategic pivot and fire some employees to hire others with a different skillset. It seems like economists do consider this to be one of the big reasons why the U.S. economy has grown so much faster than the EU. Hiring in Europe is much riskier, so companies would rather stay small.
  - hamandcheese 2y ago
    In all those cases, it sounds like the company would actually suffer the consequences of their prior mismanagement (compared to today where mostly just employees suffer from bad management decisions). Yes, that means some companies might go under when they could have saved themselves by mass layoffs. I'd be okay with that trade. Yes, that means growth might slow down to more reasonable levels. I'd be okay with that trade. Europe isn't booming economically like the US, but if you've ever traveled there, their quality of life seems perfectly fine, and costs are much lower.
111111IIIIIII 2y ago
[dead]
potato3732842 2y ago
> They might not have prepared much marketing material because they aren’t really selling anything to those of us in the general public, right? NYT isn't a highly regulated interstate employer like Boeing or the rail industry or the dockworkers so it's dispute with the union isn't a de-facto matter of national politics like those strikes were so appealing to the public to have a particular opinion on the matter is not of as much use therefore neither side of this dispute has invested heavily in it.