4 ms·

> 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.

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.