10 ms·

> The two sides negotiated until late Sunday. The sticking points in recent days were over whether they could get a “just cause” provision in their contract, wh

> The two sides negotiated until late Sunday. The sticking points in recent days were over whether they could get a “just cause” provision in their contract, which means workers can be terminated only for misconduct or another such reason; pay increases and pay equity; and return-to-office policies. This seems like a LOT of issues that still need to be hammered out. It would be one thing if they were disagreeing about a number, but it sounds like the terms keep changing and nobody agrees on the nature of the work itself. It's not even clear that there's a preliminary contract ready for the NYTimes to sign. Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull. But if this is just attention seeking without a serious contract, it seems egregiously risky on behalf of the union members too: there's not a clear button the Times can push on behalf of the union to end the strike immediately. The Times would either have to sign a blank check to the union now, or the union would have to agree to an IOU in exchange for a bunch of temporary concessions.

yoyohello13 2y ago
> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull. That’s leverage. Striking during a time when the business doesn’t care is a dumb move.
- datavirtue 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - shigawire 2y ago
    Businesses already hold a lot of leverage over employees - like healthcare or the ability to feed their families.
  - shkkmo 2y ago
    > Would a business battle with any other partner like this? Regularly. One striking example is that way our monopsonies treat often treat their suppliers.
  - cool_dude85 2y ago
    If using what leverage you have is so ridiculous, a suggestion to NYT management: agree to every contract provision on a temporary basis, and continue ongoing negotiations with the union which provisions to take away in the permanent contract. That would end some of the leverage the NYT has and level the playing field for fruitful negotiations.
  - 1shooner 2y ago
    I don't blindly give unions a pass, but you're asking if a business would use the value of their product at a particular point in time to set terms. Of course they do. If NYT didn't want to be caught in the lurch, that's what contracts are for, which they've had plenty of time to secure. By the way, the price of Christmas trees is about to skyrocket, ridiculous!
  - lucianbr 2y ago
    Yes, a business would use all their advantages at the maximum, with disregard for any other consideration than money, and tell you "it's just business". Or "it's fiduciary duty". Now that the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly they want to be reasonable? Funny that.
- bloomingkales 2y ago
  Let me correct you, this will be election month at minimum. The NYT kind of brings this kind of heat on itself because it has shifted from being just the paper of record over to an institution to the current definition of progressivism. You can only really do this union kinda stuff against self-important institutions. Which developer is ever going to attempt this on Accenture? They are straight up and honest about their business, which is they are trying to rake profits from connecting developers with companies - whatever it takes, whoever, from wherever, at whatever price is profitable. The Times adorned itself as something more than a business, a special kind of business, a business that fights for something. So there you go, live up to it I guess. Here is some of the content that the NYTimes focuses on: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/21/opinion/starbucks-union-strikes-labor-movement.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/21/opinion/starbucks-union-s...
  - drawkward 2y ago
    > the current definition of progressivism It's a fairly pro-business paper, certainly not very critical of Israel, and you appear to have completely missed all of its somewhat trans-skeptical reporting and opinion. (The latter pervasive enough to rankle many of its own employees about the tone and tenor of NYT coverage of trans issues.)
    - bloomingkales 2y ago
      I want to believe you, but my hunch is your reply is similar to someone suggesting "Well, you see, you forgot all the pro liberal coverage that Fox News has been doing all year". Does NYT not have a reputation or am I truly out of touch here? I went through some of their podcasts recently and it's all quite one-sided, for example.
      - drawkward 2y ago
        I think the paper is generally lib-left, but not necessarily progressive-left. I also see NPR as pretty centrist reporting.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  Yeah the media have been salivating for this week for months now. Exactly why I'm not planning to read or watch any news this week. I'll vote tomorrow. That's what I can do. All the rest of it is out of my hands and I'm not going to spend any of my time or mental energy engaging in the manufactured drama sure to come. Like my barber said at my last haircut: the only sure thing about this election is that an idiot will be our next president.
  - metabagel 2y ago
    Not necessarily. Trump might not win. It boggles my mind at how proud people are to refuse to draw a distinction between two completely different candidates. One has demonstrated competence and public service, while the other has demonstrated incompetence and chronic self-dealing. Refusing to draw a distinction is moral cowardice.
    - SoftTalker 2y ago
      I agree they are completely different. I don't think either are remotely qualified. I have been struggling with whether I'll vote for president at all. I cannot in good conscience endorse either candidate, on the other hand those are the choices I have. I guess I could do a symbolic write-in. I have never been less motivated for a presidential election in my life.
  - jimbob45 2y ago
    Exactly why I'm not planning to read or watch any news this week. I see we share the same strategy. My new policy is that I shut the news off once the polls open on election day and don't turn it back on until the following morning. Over the course of my life, I'll accrue enough saved hours to have achieved something minor, yet meaningful.
cool_dude85 2y ago
What's crappy about the union striking when they have leverage? Should they have waited until the strike would apply less pressure to their employer?
- foota 2y ago
  Because waiting for the time when you can apply the most leverage is a shitty thing to do? How would you feel if your house was on fire and the fire fighters went on strike only then to demand they be given bounties? They had a contract, waiting for the time when the work they do is absolutely critical is antisocial behavior. Society is built on people honoring their commitments.
  - rapind 2y ago
    > How would you feel if your house was on fire and the fire fighters went on strike only then to demand they be given bounties? What a terrible analogy promoting a ridiculous narrative. A better analogy is if it's the mayors house on fire, it was predetermined when exactly the mayors house would catch fire, the mayor had been warned well in advance of his house catching fire that the firefighters would like to negotiate their contract, and had in fact been involved in negotiations for years already. Not quite the same zing to it though...
    - foota 2y ago
      If they didn't like their contract, the responsible thing to do would have been to go on strike earlier or quit. Waiting till the moment of maximal pain is just spiteful and done in bad faith. Ultimately, labor unions exist to extract additional compensation from employers. Imo in cases where the employer can afford it and the employees in question are being unfairly treated, I think it's reasonable for them to quit or strike in good faith, but I don't think many of those things are true here. Newspapers are barely surviving these days. These people took jobs at the nytimes knowing they wouldn't make big tech salaries, and most companies have ended WFH policies. If they can force the NYTimes to give them concessions by holding them hostage during one of the most contentious moments in US history, I won't admire them one bit. Lastly, thanks for drawing that better comparison. It still wouldn't be right for the firefighters to let someone's house burn down in that case.
JohnBrookz 2y ago
That’s the perfect time to go on strike.
PittleyDunkin 2y ago
> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull. It's smart. The one week where americans manage pull their head out of their ass is a good time to move.
- seizethecheese 2y ago
  Why not both smart and crappy?
  - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
    TBH, i don't see the crappy angle at all. I think the country will be just fine without its favored boutique-news-coverage-election-needle-software. Besides, the actual coverage isn't being effected at all. EDIT: spelling
- wholinator2 2y ago
  I don't know, probably the lowest common denominator is paying more attention but most everyone i know is desperately trying to shove their heads anywhere that is quiet and calm. The fervor and anger with which all common media explodes during election month is unbearable.
  - briandear 2y ago
    Most of us aren’t paying attention to The NY Times. If they aren’t there, nobody will notice.
krainboltgreene 2y ago
It seems extremely bad taste for you to comment on the situation like this with such little insight. Like do you even have any union negotiation experience? Monday morning quarterbacking is always so tacky.
- legitster 2y ago
  > Like do you even have any union negotiation experience? I spent 3 years working for a professional union negotiator. I don't know everything, but I feel like I have a bit more insight into how the sausage gets made.
  - krainboltgreene 2y ago
    Man I sincerely doubt that because I would never ever feel comfortable commenting like that. I looked through your post history for union references and it seems like you're not all that onboard with american unionization practices. I guess I'm forced to believe you due to anonymity though.
stickfigure 2y ago
> workers can be terminated only for misconduct or another such reason This is such a weird request for technology workers. You want to work with low-performing coworkers?
- afh1 2y ago
  [flagged]
- drawkward 2y ago
  Seems like a hiring problem, not a firing problem.
  - VWWHFSfQ 2y ago
    I have lots of experience hiring tech people. Most of the time they turn out to be just as good as we thought they would be. But sometimes they don't. It would be terrible if it was impossible for us to let those people go.
    - drawkward 2y ago
      It would be terrible for businesses to fire people arbitrarily. I'd rather give more rights to individuals than to businesses, because I am biased in an anti-business way: businesses arent bounded by human lifespans or biological constraints, get preferential treatment by the American legal system, have orders of magnitude more money and political power than individuals. It's almost like the USA fought a war and chartered individual rights in a document over this kind of shit, but never imagined businesses would be more encompassing than governments.
      - VWWHFSfQ 2y ago
        Off-shoring is already very prevalent in US tech work. So there certainly needs to be a balance in workers rights and business interest if those jobs are going to stay domestic. In general I agree with your perspective. But there is a harsh alternative reality that we're going to continue to face in the tech workforce.
bojo 2y ago
> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull. That sounds like an anti-union stance to me. There's no better time to strike than when your opponent can't afford to look bad.
- sp527 2y ago
  What's wrong with being anti-union? I'm extremely anti-union principally because they drive up costs to consumers while yielding a product or service of at best comparable (but usually degraded) quality. Some easy examples are UAW destroying Detroit automakers or the recent dockworkers strike involving uneducated laborers demanding compensation ludicrously in excess of what even most people with master's degrees make, all to drastically under-perform equivalent workers from almost anywhere else in the world. To top it off, those same dockworkers zealously guard access to those highly lucrative jobs with some very questionable tactics. When you drive by a highway construction project that doesn't progress for years or, worse, a horde of workers, most of whom appear to be doing absolutely nothing, there's a good chance that's union fuckery. When you go to almost any hotel in NYC and are treated with borderline disdain by highly incompetent staff while paying $500+ a night, that's union fuckery. When you wonder why you can't get cheap sufficiently high quality EVs like those from China, that's union fuckery. I could go on. Unions are not comprised of saints. They're doing the same thing as the companies they despise: getting theirs while fucking over everyone else.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
AlwaysRock 2y ago
> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull. If a strike isnt painful for the employer, what incentive do they have to negotiate?
maronato 2y ago
Negotiations have been going on for 2 years, and the strike was approved in September. This isn’t a spur-of-the-moment, attention-seeking thing and was totally preventable by NYT. https://www.axios.com/2024/09/10/nyt-tech-union-strike-vote https://www.axios.com/2024/09/10/nyt-tech-union-strike-vote
dehrmann 2y ago
> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull Siblings are doubting this, but you can think of it like price gouging. It's the right behavior for extracting maximum value, but it burns a lot of trust, and that's important for a long-term business arrangement. It's playing the short game when they should be playing the long game.
- maronato 2y ago
  Strikes happen when the trust is already burned. This has been going on for a long time, and we’re only seeing the public side of the conflict. > The guild, which was formed in 2022, has yet to secure a contract after more than two years of bargaining. https://www.axios.com/2024/09/10/nyt-tech-union-strike-vote https://www.axios.com/2024/09/10/nyt-tech-union-strike-vote
- lucianbr 2y ago
  Maybe there is little trust left? I don't know about NYT in particular, but the news regularly suggests employees trusting businesses are nothing but suckers.
feedforward 2y ago
> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull. Yes, heaven forbid the people doing all the work and creating all the wealth actually use their leverage against the heirs collecting NYT dividends.
yieldcrv 2y ago
> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull. According to the NY Times article, this was outlined and agreed to by the union on September 10th. So this is the poison pill because the agreement wasn't finished over the last 2 months.
39896880 2y ago
> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull. Can we get a definitive list of weeks where workers’ rights are officially less important than $world_event? That way we can schedule our requests appropriately. We don’t want to inconvenience anyone.
- legitster 2y ago
  I know you are trying to be flip, but there topics that are more important than worker's rights. I'm not going to argue that the NYTimes crossword is up there, but I think a good case can be made that independent journalism is up there, especially during open elections. There is a long list of organizations and governments that made worker's rights more important than inclusive democratic institutions, and it didn't work out for anyone, especially the workers. Maybe any of the 207 weeks between presidential elections? Or any of the thousands of weeks when one of the running candidates has threatened the legitimacy of their institution directly?
  - marricks 2y ago
    Day of election there is a big tally when votes come in and pictures of American Democracy In Action with a bunch of puff stories about people in lines. Huge time for viewership, not a huge time for important journalism. There is no perfect time to strike, but I think other outlets can cover the typical: - "huge lines in Pennsylvania!" - "Polls close in [KEY SWING STATE] in 2 hours!" - "Wow the whole west coast went blue, who would have thought!" - "Shocker that one battleground is going into recount which will somehow last 4 weeks."
  - petesergeant 2y ago
    There will be absolutely no shortage of other places where Americans get their election news, and arguably at a higher quality than NYT. I will miss their election ticker dashboard widget thing though, that thing is cool.
- Justsignedup 2y ago
  All people who don't care say "can you please go over there, in the corner, where I can't see you, so you can protest and I can appropriately ignore you." The point of a protest is to annoy you. Annoy you enough into action.
marricks 2y ago
> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull NYTimes has dragged out the negotiations for months, refusing to have a contract. It's kinda a make or break time for the union. When would be better to strike, what time would NYTimes and the audience prefer? It should be during a choke point otherwise management wouldn't listen. Additionally, this is a high traffic time, but not really a high stakes time I'd argue. They're not going to influence the election by going out day before or day of it, they will just lose viewership to others covering what's happening.
- radlad 2y ago
  Didn't Wirecutter once strike during Black Friday? https://nypost.com/2021/11/25/workers-at-new-york-times-wirecutter-strike-ahead-of-black-friday/ https://nypost.com/2021/11/25/workers-at-new-york-times-wire...
- notatoad 2y ago
  >When would be better to strike i think the point the parent is making is that a better time to strike would be when they have specific demands that management is able to meet - to get them to the negotiating table, or to get them to sign a contract. but in the case where management is already at the negotiating table, and there's no contract to be signed, it's not clear what short-term goal a strike is meant to achieve. the only thing it does is cause hurt. Hurting management is going to make their negotiations more difficult. and hurting management in this specific way is not just hurting management, it's also alienating their journalist colleagues who should be their strongest allies in this fight.
  - marricks 2y ago
    > when they have specific demands that management is able to meet It's just wild how management is able to unilaterally decide what is and isn't reasonable, and just label unions as childish. "We want to help you, but you're hurting us!" is one small step away from "gosh we love the idea of unions but it causes too much friction between workers and management, and trust me, management knows best."
blululu 2y ago
Not sure how risky this really is for the Union. Their software engineers are taking a pay cut for the prestige of working for the most influential newspaper on earth. When your BATNA is getting a 50% pay bump somewhere else then strike away. God forbid if the servers crash while reporting on the second hand recount in Georgia next month.
farts_mckensy 2y ago
> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull. I love that the default ideology here is to side with the employer. I'm glad that when I am negotiating my salary with my employer, there are no comments from the Peanuts gallery.
wesselbindt 2y ago
> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull I couldn't disagree more. The point of a strike is to demonstrate the value of your labor by withholding it. Withholding your labor in a slow week would be counterproductive. Strikes (just like any effective form of protest) are supposed to be inconvenient, so in saying what you said, you're really just expressing you don't like strikes. Having this blow up in election week is a risk the Times knowingly took in not meeting their workers' needs sufficiently, and drawing out the negotiations as long as they have. The guild is doing the right thing.
- legitster 2y ago
  Sure, but you are also appealing for public sentiment. So there's a reason why teacher's unions carefully time their strikes so they don't clash with important events like SAT season. I'm not arguing they need to pick the slowest week, but striking a balance seems pretty reasonable and pretty standard for most other unions.
  - vundercind 2y ago
    I'm pretty sure the wider harm of the NYT halting operations for an entire week—which isn't remotely what's happening—would be effectively zero, even during the week of a presidential election. What's the problem? Teachers and health care workers try to be more careful because a bunch of vulnerable people (children, patients) with little to no say in anything about how their respective institutions run are heavily dependent on them. A single newspaper, even the NYT, isn't comparable.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      Exactly, if anything this strike is timed to do the least damage to the general public relative to the amount of impact it has on the business. The election has already been decided, we're just waiting to tally the votes. Most people have already decided if they're going to vote and if so who for. If they had striked last week or the week before they'd have been accused of election interference. Striking this week hurts the Times because they run the risk of losing traffic from people trying to see results, but it doesn't impact the results at all. It's the best possible time to strike this year.
WalterBright 2y ago
> which means workers can be terminated only for misconduct or another such reason So the company would be required to retain and pay deadwood, low productive people, and staff for obsoleted positions? That'll cripple any company over time. If people demand those working conditions, they should get a government job.
serial_dev 2y ago
> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull. They are so silly, why have the strike when you have the greatest leverage, they should wait with their strike until a more convenient moment when they could be easier ignored.
Steuard 2y ago
The impact on election news coverage may not be that serious. Quoting from a NYT newsroom person: "NYT Games and Cooking are BEHIND THE PICKET LINE. Please don’t play or engage with Games or Cooking content while the strike lasts! News coverage — including election coverage — is NOT behind the picket line. It’s okay to read and share that, though the site and app may very well have problems." (https://bsky.app/profile/maggieastor.bsky.social/post/3la4qgiixlr2x https://bsky.app/profile/maggieastor.bsky.social/post/3la4qg...)
Spooky23 2y ago
Do NYT reporters wait for a quiet time to pump sources for information? Time and space is strategic. If you have a unionized workforce without a contract or productive negotiations in progress ahead of a critical time, you’re rolling the dice.
dakiol 2y ago
> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull That's the whole point of strikes. If you do them when they are less painful, there's no point in doing them. And in this case, is not like the public doesn't have dozens of other options to consume during election week.
tibbon 2y ago
> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull > there's not a clear button the Times can push on behalf of the union to end the strike immediately. The Times would either have to sign a blank check to the union now But that's the thing, NYT Leadership can choose to offer agreeable terms and end this now. They simply elect not to. Management often likes to drag out negotiations and then play the victim.
throwaway2037 2y ago
> This seems like a LOT of issues that still need to be hammered out. They have been negotiating for two and half years. That seems like plenty of time to me. Can you imagine a union nego taking that long in a country where labour laws are stronger? Seriously: Can you imagine Germany's IG Metall spending 2.5 years to negotiate (without success!) a new contract? It is unthinkable. One thing I have observed over the years, no matter what are the core issues, it is "never a good time" to strike as a union. I see this sentiment repeated over and over again (over decades!) by anti-unionists. > there's not a clear button the Times can push on behalf of the union to end the strike immediately There is: Agree to the demands of the union.
- erulabs 2y ago
  I’m never sure how to feel about arguments that take the form of “it’s obvious, just compare to <thing a statistically vanishing number of people could possibly be in a position to evaluate>”. I’m not sure how many Americans in an average group of 100 are aware of the average union negotiation time of a specific German union, but I’d guess between 0 and 1? I asked my German wife and she looked quizzical and asked if I needed her to Google it. I’m not disagreeing with you but I’m not sure this form of argument-by-esoteric-fact accomplishes your goals. Maybe I’m just uninformed, but as an uninformed reader, I’m not inclined to believe you. Present it as novel information and not something hilarious obvious, and you would probably have won at least one supporter.
  - throwaway2037 2y ago
    I understand you sentiment. I was trying to offer an outsider's perspective. It's like talking a Swede about what happens when you don't have health insurance. They will look at you confused. "What do you mean 'don't have health insurance'? That is impossible in Sweden." Also, according to Wiki, IG Metall is <<the dominant metalworkers' union in Germany, making it the country's largest union as well as Europe's largest industrial union.>> I did some Google searches to find last few negotiations. It normally takes a couple of months. 2.5 years (NYT) is just... well... insane.
mattacular 2y ago
> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull Hard disagree. They're exerting what little leverage they have. Also there's plenty of places to get reliable election coverage besides NYT so who cares?
bankcust08385 2y ago
The point of strikes isn't to be unobtrusive or convenient. You're just saying people should work for nothing and not take the fat cats to task for underpaying them. Maybe if you stood for solidarity with the workers, you would have some credibility.

yoyohello13 2y ago

> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull. That’s leverage. Striking during a time when the business doesn’t care is a dumb move.

datavirtue 2y ago
[flagged]
- shigawire 2y ago
  Businesses already hold a lot of leverage over employees - like healthcare or the ability to feed their families.
- shkkmo 2y ago
  > Would a business battle with any other partner like this? Regularly. One striking example is that way our monopsonies treat often treat their suppliers.
- cool_dude85 2y ago
  If using what leverage you have is so ridiculous, a suggestion to NYT management: agree to every contract provision on a temporary basis, and continue ongoing negotiations with the union which provisions to take away in the permanent contract. That would end some of the leverage the NYT has and level the playing field for fruitful negotiations.
- 1shooner 2y ago
  I don't blindly give unions a pass, but you're asking if a business would use the value of their product at a particular point in time to set terms. Of course they do. If NYT didn't want to be caught in the lurch, that's what contracts are for, which they've had plenty of time to secure. By the way, the price of Christmas trees is about to skyrocket, ridiculous!
- lucianbr 2y ago
  Yes, a business would use all their advantages at the maximum, with disregard for any other consideration than money, and tell you "it's just business". Or "it's fiduciary duty". Now that the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly they want to be reasonable? Funny that.
bloomingkales 2y ago
Let me correct you, this will be election month at minimum. The NYT kind of brings this kind of heat on itself because it has shifted from being just the paper of record over to an institution to the current definition of progressivism. You can only really do this union kinda stuff against self-important institutions. Which developer is ever going to attempt this on Accenture? They are straight up and honest about their business, which is they are trying to rake profits from connecting developers with companies - whatever it takes, whoever, from wherever, at whatever price is profitable. The Times adorned itself as something more than a business, a special kind of business, a business that fights for something. So there you go, live up to it I guess. Here is some of the content that the NYTimes focuses on: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/21/opinion/starbucks-union-strikes-labor-movement.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/21/opinion/starbucks-union-s...
- drawkward 2y ago
  > the current definition of progressivism It's a fairly pro-business paper, certainly not very critical of Israel, and you appear to have completely missed all of its somewhat trans-skeptical reporting and opinion. (The latter pervasive enough to rankle many of its own employees about the tone and tenor of NYT coverage of trans issues.)
  - bloomingkales 2y ago
    I want to believe you, but my hunch is your reply is similar to someone suggesting "Well, you see, you forgot all the pro liberal coverage that Fox News has been doing all year". Does NYT not have a reputation or am I truly out of touch here? I went through some of their podcasts recently and it's all quite one-sided, for example.
    - drawkward 2y ago
      I think the paper is generally lib-left, but not necessarily progressive-left. I also see NPR as pretty centrist reporting.
SoftTalker 2y ago
Yeah the media have been salivating for this week for months now. Exactly why I'm not planning to read or watch any news this week. I'll vote tomorrow. That's what I can do. All the rest of it is out of my hands and I'm not going to spend any of my time or mental energy engaging in the manufactured drama sure to come. Like my barber said at my last haircut: the only sure thing about this election is that an idiot will be our next president.
- metabagel 2y ago
  Not necessarily. Trump might not win. It boggles my mind at how proud people are to refuse to draw a distinction between two completely different candidates. One has demonstrated competence and public service, while the other has demonstrated incompetence and chronic self-dealing. Refusing to draw a distinction is moral cowardice.
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    I agree they are completely different. I don't think either are remotely qualified. I have been struggling with whether I'll vote for president at all. I cannot in good conscience endorse either candidate, on the other hand those are the choices I have. I guess I could do a symbolic write-in. I have never been less motivated for a presidential election in my life.
- jimbob45 2y ago
  Exactly why I'm not planning to read or watch any news this week. I see we share the same strategy. My new policy is that I shut the news off once the polls open on election day and don't turn it back on until the following morning. Over the course of my life, I'll accrue enough saved hours to have achieved something minor, yet meaningful.

cool_dude85 2y ago

What's crappy about the union striking when they have leverage? Should they have waited until the strike would apply less pressure to their employer?

foota 2y ago
Because waiting for the time when you can apply the most leverage is a shitty thing to do? How would you feel if your house was on fire and the fire fighters went on strike only then to demand they be given bounties? They had a contract, waiting for the time when the work they do is absolutely critical is antisocial behavior. Society is built on people honoring their commitments.
- rapind 2y ago
  > How would you feel if your house was on fire and the fire fighters went on strike only then to demand they be given bounties? What a terrible analogy promoting a ridiculous narrative. A better analogy is if it's the mayors house on fire, it was predetermined when exactly the mayors house would catch fire, the mayor had been warned well in advance of his house catching fire that the firefighters would like to negotiate their contract, and had in fact been involved in negotiations for years already. Not quite the same zing to it though...
  - foota 2y ago
    If they didn't like their contract, the responsible thing to do would have been to go on strike earlier or quit. Waiting till the moment of maximal pain is just spiteful and done in bad faith. Ultimately, labor unions exist to extract additional compensation from employers. Imo in cases where the employer can afford it and the employees in question are being unfairly treated, I think it's reasonable for them to quit or strike in good faith, but I don't think many of those things are true here. Newspapers are barely surviving these days. These people took jobs at the nytimes knowing they wouldn't make big tech salaries, and most companies have ended WFH policies. If they can force the NYTimes to give them concessions by holding them hostage during one of the most contentious moments in US history, I won't admire them one bit. Lastly, thanks for drawing that better comparison. It still wouldn't be right for the firefighters to let someone's house burn down in that case.

JohnBrookz 2y ago

That’s the perfect time to go on strike.

PittleyDunkin 2y ago

> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull. It's smart. The one week where americans manage pull their head out of their ass is a good time to move.

seizethecheese 2y ago
Why not both smart and crappy?
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago
  TBH, i don't see the crappy angle at all. I think the country will be just fine without its favored boutique-news-coverage-election-needle-software. Besides, the actual coverage isn't being effected at all. EDIT: spelling
wholinator2 2y ago
I don't know, probably the lowest common denominator is paying more attention but most everyone i know is desperately trying to shove their heads anywhere that is quiet and calm. The fervor and anger with which all common media explodes during election month is unbearable.
- briandear 2y ago
  Most of us aren’t paying attention to The NY Times. If they aren’t there, nobody will notice.

krainboltgreene 2y ago

It seems extremely bad taste for you to comment on the situation like this with such little insight. Like do you even have any union negotiation experience? Monday morning quarterbacking is always so tacky.

legitster 2y ago
> Like do you even have any union negotiation experience? I spent 3 years working for a professional union negotiator. I don't know everything, but I feel like I have a bit more insight into how the sausage gets made.
- krainboltgreene 2y ago
  Man I sincerely doubt that because I would never ever feel comfortable commenting like that. I looked through your post history for union references and it seems like you're not all that onboard with american unionization practices. I guess I'm forced to believe you due to anonymity though.

stickfigure 2y ago

> workers can be terminated only for misconduct or another such reason This is such a weird request for technology workers. You want to work with low-performing coworkers?

afh1 2y ago
[flagged]
drawkward 2y ago
Seems like a hiring problem, not a firing problem.
- VWWHFSfQ 2y ago
  I have lots of experience hiring tech people. Most of the time they turn out to be just as good as we thought they would be. But sometimes they don't. It would be terrible if it was impossible for us to let those people go.
  - drawkward 2y ago
    It would be terrible for businesses to fire people arbitrarily. I'd rather give more rights to individuals than to businesses, because I am biased in an anti-business way: businesses arent bounded by human lifespans or biological constraints, get preferential treatment by the American legal system, have orders of magnitude more money and political power than individuals. It's almost like the USA fought a war and chartered individual rights in a document over this kind of shit, but never imagined businesses would be more encompassing than governments.
    - VWWHFSfQ 2y ago
      Off-shoring is already very prevalent in US tech work. So there certainly needs to be a balance in workers rights and business interest if those jobs are going to stay domestic. In general I agree with your perspective. But there is a harsh alternative reality that we're going to continue to face in the tech workforce.

bojo 2y ago

> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull. That sounds like an anti-union stance to me. There's no better time to strike than when your opponent can't afford to look bad.

sp527 2y ago
What's wrong with being anti-union? I'm extremely anti-union principally because they drive up costs to consumers while yielding a product or service of at best comparable (but usually degraded) quality. Some easy examples are UAW destroying Detroit automakers or the recent dockworkers strike involving uneducated laborers demanding compensation ludicrously in excess of what even most people with master's degrees make, all to drastically under-perform equivalent workers from almost anywhere else in the world. To top it off, those same dockworkers zealously guard access to those highly lucrative jobs with some very questionable tactics. When you drive by a highway construction project that doesn't progress for years or, worse, a horde of workers, most of whom appear to be doing absolutely nothing, there's a good chance that's union fuckery. When you go to almost any hotel in NYC and are treated with borderline disdain by highly incompetent staff while paying $500+ a night, that's union fuckery. When you wonder why you can't get cheap sufficiently high quality EVs like those from China, that's union fuckery. I could go on. Unions are not comprised of saints. They're doing the same thing as the companies they despise: getting theirs while fucking over everyone else.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

AlwaysRock 2y ago

> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull. If a strike isnt painful for the employer, what incentive do they have to negotiate?

maronato 2y ago

Negotiations have been going on for 2 years, and the strike was approved in September. This isn’t a spur-of-the-moment, attention-seeking thing and was totally preventable by NYT. https://www.axios.com/2024/09/10/nyt-tech-union-strike-vote https://www.axios.com/2024/09/10/nyt-tech-union-strike-vote

dehrmann 2y ago

> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull Siblings are doubting this, but you can think of it like price gouging. It's the right behavior for extracting maximum value, but it burns a lot of trust, and that's important for a long-term business arrangement. It's playing the short game when they should be playing the long game.

maronato 2y ago
Strikes happen when the trust is already burned. This has been going on for a long time, and we’re only seeing the public side of the conflict. > The guild, which was formed in 2022, has yet to secure a contract after more than two years of bargaining. https://www.axios.com/2024/09/10/nyt-tech-union-strike-vote https://www.axios.com/2024/09/10/nyt-tech-union-strike-vote
lucianbr 2y ago
Maybe there is little trust left? I don't know about NYT in particular, but the news regularly suggests employees trusting businesses are nothing but suckers.

feedforward 2y ago

> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull. Yes, heaven forbid the people doing all the work and creating all the wealth actually use their leverage against the heirs collecting NYT dividends.

yieldcrv 2y ago

> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull. According to the NY Times article, this was outlined and agreed to by the union on September 10th. So this is the poison pill because the agreement wasn't finished over the last 2 months.

39896880 2y ago

> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull. Can we get a definitive list of weeks where workers’ rights are officially less important than $world_event? That way we can schedule our requests appropriately. We don’t want to inconvenience anyone.

legitster 2y ago
I know you are trying to be flip, but there topics that are more important than worker's rights. I'm not going to argue that the NYTimes crossword is up there, but I think a good case can be made that independent journalism is up there, especially during open elections. There is a long list of organizations and governments that made worker's rights more important than inclusive democratic institutions, and it didn't work out for anyone, especially the workers. Maybe any of the 207 weeks between presidential elections? Or any of the thousands of weeks when one of the running candidates has threatened the legitimacy of their institution directly?
- marricks 2y ago
  Day of election there is a big tally when votes come in and pictures of American Democracy In Action with a bunch of puff stories about people in lines. Huge time for viewership, not a huge time for important journalism. There is no perfect time to strike, but I think other outlets can cover the typical: - "huge lines in Pennsylvania!" - "Polls close in [KEY SWING STATE] in 2 hours!" - "Wow the whole west coast went blue, who would have thought!" - "Shocker that one battleground is going into recount which will somehow last 4 weeks."
- petesergeant 2y ago
  There will be absolutely no shortage of other places where Americans get their election news, and arguably at a higher quality than NYT. I will miss their election ticker dashboard widget thing though, that thing is cool.
Justsignedup 2y ago
All people who don't care say "can you please go over there, in the corner, where I can't see you, so you can protest and I can appropriately ignore you." The point of a protest is to annoy you. Annoy you enough into action.

marricks 2y ago

> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull NYTimes has dragged out the negotiations for months, refusing to have a contract. It's kinda a make or break time for the union. When would be better to strike, what time would NYTimes and the audience prefer? It should be during a choke point otherwise management wouldn't listen. Additionally, this is a high traffic time, but not really a high stakes time I'd argue. They're not going to influence the election by going out day before or day of it, they will just lose viewership to others covering what's happening.

radlad 2y ago
Didn't Wirecutter once strike during Black Friday? https://nypost.com/2021/11/25/workers-at-new-york-times-wirecutter-strike-ahead-of-black-friday/ https://nypost.com/2021/11/25/workers-at-new-york-times-wire...
notatoad 2y ago
>When would be better to strike i think the point the parent is making is that a better time to strike would be when they have specific demands that management is able to meet - to get them to the negotiating table, or to get them to sign a contract. but in the case where management is already at the negotiating table, and there's no contract to be signed, it's not clear what short-term goal a strike is meant to achieve. the only thing it does is cause hurt. Hurting management is going to make their negotiations more difficult. and hurting management in this specific way is not just hurting management, it's also alienating their journalist colleagues who should be their strongest allies in this fight.
- marricks 2y ago
  > when they have specific demands that management is able to meet It's just wild how management is able to unilaterally decide what is and isn't reasonable, and just label unions as childish. "We want to help you, but you're hurting us!" is one small step away from "gosh we love the idea of unions but it causes too much friction between workers and management, and trust me, management knows best."

blululu 2y ago

Not sure how risky this really is for the Union. Their software engineers are taking a pay cut for the prestige of working for the most influential newspaper on earth. When your BATNA is getting a 50% pay bump somewhere else then strike away. God forbid if the servers crash while reporting on the second hand recount in Georgia next month.

farts_mckensy 2y ago

> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull. I love that the default ideology here is to side with the employer. I'm glad that when I am negotiating my salary with my employer, there are no comments from the Peanuts gallery.

wesselbindt 2y ago

> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull I couldn't disagree more. The point of a strike is to demonstrate the value of your labor by withholding it. Withholding your labor in a slow week would be counterproductive. Strikes (just like any effective form of protest) are supposed to be inconvenient, so in saying what you said, you're really just expressing you don't like strikes. Having this blow up in election week is a risk the Times knowingly took in not meeting their workers' needs sufficiently, and drawing out the negotiations as long as they have. The guild is doing the right thing.

legitster 2y ago
Sure, but you are also appealing for public sentiment. So there's a reason why teacher's unions carefully time their strikes so they don't clash with important events like SAT season. I'm not arguing they need to pick the slowest week, but striking a balance seems pretty reasonable and pretty standard for most other unions.
- vundercind 2y ago
  I'm pretty sure the wider harm of the NYT halting operations for an entire week—which isn't remotely what's happening—would be effectively zero, even during the week of a presidential election. What's the problem? Teachers and health care workers try to be more careful because a bunch of vulnerable people (children, patients) with little to no say in anything about how their respective institutions run are heavily dependent on them. A single newspaper, even the NYT, isn't comparable.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Exactly, if anything this strike is timed to do the least damage to the general public relative to the amount of impact it has on the business. The election has already been decided, we're just waiting to tally the votes. Most people have already decided if they're going to vote and if so who for. If they had striked last week or the week before they'd have been accused of election interference. Striking this week hurts the Times because they run the risk of losing traffic from people trying to see results, but it doesn't impact the results at all. It's the best possible time to strike this year.

WalterBright 2y ago

> which means workers can be terminated only for misconduct or another such reason So the company would be required to retain and pay deadwood, low productive people, and staff for obsoleted positions? That'll cripple any company over time. If people demand those working conditions, they should get a government job.

serial_dev 2y ago

> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull. They are so silly, why have the strike when you have the greatest leverage, they should wait with their strike until a more convenient moment when they could be easier ignored.

Steuard 2y ago

The impact on election news coverage may not be that serious. Quoting from a NYT newsroom person: "NYT Games and Cooking are BEHIND THE PICKET LINE. Please don’t play or engage with Games or Cooking content while the strike lasts! News coverage — including election coverage — is NOT behind the picket line. It’s okay to read and share that, though the site and app may very well have problems." (https://bsky.app/profile/maggieastor.bsky.social/post/3la4qgiixlr2x https://bsky.app/profile/maggieastor.bsky.social/post/3la4qg...)

Spooky23 2y ago

Do NYT reporters wait for a quiet time to pump sources for information? Time and space is strategic. If you have a unionized workforce without a contract or productive negotiations in progress ahead of a critical time, you’re rolling the dice.

dakiol 2y ago

> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull That's the whole point of strikes. If you do them when they are less painful, there's no point in doing them. And in this case, is not like the public doesn't have dozens of other options to consume during election week.

tibbon 2y ago

> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull > there's not a clear button the Times can push on behalf of the union to end the strike immediately. The Times would either have to sign a blank check to the union now But that's the thing, NYT Leadership can choose to offer agreeable terms and end this now. They simply elect not to. Management often likes to drag out negotiations and then play the victim.

throwaway2037 2y ago

> This seems like a LOT of issues that still need to be hammered out. They have been negotiating for two and half years. That seems like plenty of time to me. Can you imagine a union nego taking that long in a country where labour laws are stronger? Seriously: Can you imagine Germany's IG Metall spending 2.5 years to negotiate (without success!) a new contract? It is unthinkable. One thing I have observed over the years, no matter what are the core issues, it is "never a good time" to strike as a union. I see this sentiment repeated over and over again (over decades!) by anti-unionists. > there's not a clear button the Times can push on behalf of the union to end the strike immediately There is: Agree to the demands of the union.

erulabs 2y ago
I’m never sure how to feel about arguments that take the form of “it’s obvious, just compare to <thing a statistically vanishing number of people could possibly be in a position to evaluate>”. I’m not sure how many Americans in an average group of 100 are aware of the average union negotiation time of a specific German union, but I’d guess between 0 and 1? I asked my German wife and she looked quizzical and asked if I needed her to Google it. I’m not disagreeing with you but I’m not sure this form of argument-by-esoteric-fact accomplishes your goals. Maybe I’m just uninformed, but as an uninformed reader, I’m not inclined to believe you. Present it as novel information and not something hilarious obvious, and you would probably have won at least one supporter.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  I understand you sentiment. I was trying to offer an outsider's perspective. It's like talking a Swede about what happens when you don't have health insurance. They will look at you confused. "What do you mean 'don't have health insurance'? That is impossible in Sweden." Also, according to Wiki, IG Metall is <<the dominant metalworkers' union in Germany, making it the country's largest union as well as Europe's largest industrial union.>> I did some Google searches to find last few negotiations. It normally takes a couple of months. 2.5 years (NYT) is just... well... insane.

mattacular 2y ago

> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull Hard disagree. They're exerting what little leverage they have. Also there's plenty of places to get reliable election coverage besides NYT so who cares?

bankcust08385 2y ago

The point of strikes isn't to be unobtrusive or convenient. You're just saying people should work for nothing and not take the fat cats to task for underpaying them. Maybe if you stood for solidarity with the workers, you would have some credibility.