5 ms·

Let’s take the NYT Tech Guild. They negotiated a new contract following a strike last November. Here are some of the things they won: > Enhanced job security w

Let’s take the NYT Tech Guild. They negotiated a new contract following a strike last November. Here are some of the things they won: > Enhanced job security with ‘just cause’ protections > Guaranteed wage increases for the first time of up to 8.25% (plus additional base rate discretionary compensation) that prioritize the largest wage increases for the lowest paid members over the life of the contract > Additional compensation for on-call work > Important protections that lock in guardrails on additional variable compensation (including stocks and bonuses) > Improved protections for workers on visas > Language guaranteeing flexible hybrid work schedules > Process and transparency protections related to career growth, performance reviews and other workplace issues https://www.theverge.com/2024/12/11/24319022/nyt-times-tech-guild-workers-win-tentative-union-contract https://www.theverge.com/2024/12/11/24319022/nyt-times-tech-...

lr4444lr 2y ago
As a fairly progressive news outlet attracting staff with certain sensibilties in the NYC area and selling views to people who are the same, the NYTimes board of directors has a vested PR interest in tolerating unions with the large amounts money they have to pay for the privilege. I'm not convinced the company is better served by unionized employees over the rest of the tech scene, which has to innovate to stay solvent. Knowing someone in tech there who refused to join the union, I was told these guys aren't particularly the best or smartest colleagues she's ever worked with to put it mildly.
- jakelazaroff 2y ago
  Sounds plausible, but that hypothesis is ultimately belied by the the NYT's actual stance toward their unions (which is hostile): https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/feb/01/leaked-messages-new-york-times-anti-union-strategy https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/feb/01/leaked-message... > The National Labor Relations Board rejected the New York Times’ attempt to stop the election, alleging the bargaining unit was improper. The company had previously declined to voluntarily recognize the union and immediately began holding anti-union captive audience meetings with workers. > The NewsGuild of New York filed a complaint earlier this month with the NLRB, accusing the Times of violating federal labor law by adding new paid days off to the company holiday calendar for non-union employees only – which was viewed as a tactic to dissuade workers from voting for the union. > After the complaint was filed, the New York Times made similar changes to its bereavement policy, making it applicable only to non-union workers. The union is collecting signatures as part of a public petition demanding the New York Times stop what it calls union-busting. > On 5 January, the NLRB filed a complaint against the Times, ruling the company violated federal labor law by telling some employees they could not show support for tech workers seeking to unionize.
  - __loam 2y ago
    He forgot the neo when he called the times a liberal institution.
  - c0redump 2y ago
    It’s funny how you have hard facts backed by citation, and the other poster has nothing but vibes and anecdotes. I don’t know if you convinced him, but you certainly make a compelling case for everyone else reading this exchange.
- __loam 2y ago
  > Knowing someone in tech there who refused to join the union, I was told these guys aren't particularly the best or smartest colleagues she's ever worked with to put it mildly. Hackernews poster go 5 minutes without insulting your peers challenge: impossible.
  - Aeolun 2y ago
    I think the rub is that you don’t consider them peers at all?
- Sir_Twist 2y ago
  Forgive me if this is an overly-simplistic question – I'm a student, so there is a lot I don't know and this seems to be a complex topic, but I ask this in good faith: if the people that are members of the union are happy with it, what negative outcome is produced so as to make the union a bad solution? From what I understand, the basic purpose of a union is to give its members more collective negotiating power with the employer. Its purpose isn't to better serve the company, necessarily, but to give the employees a more effective means of having their needs met – if employees feel these needs aren't being met, negotiating and making an agreement collectively could be a more effective route. Its job is to change the power dynamic between employees and companies, in favor of the employees. If this is the case, and the NYTimes tech staff who are union members like the outcome unionizing has had, then how is it a bad solution? What would be a better alternative of meeting the employees' needs? I recognize my understanding is probably incomplete; I write this comment not to defend this position on unions, but to learn why it may be wrong.
  - tim333 2y ago
    A general problem is it can make the industries less competitive and the companies struggle as work moves elsewhere. See the history of Detroit for example. A lot depends on the details.
echelon 2y ago
I made $450k TC in my last job. In Atlanta. I don't think we need unions to be treated well. Unions will kickstart the offshoring of our career. Just like every other place unions exist without a talent monopoly (manufacturing, automotive, and most recently film crews). Google is going to hire in developing markets and stop hiring domestically. Everyone else will follow. The talent in India is incredible these days. You can't knock them or call them less talented than US engineers. They're rock solid. And there are lots of other talented worldwide markets for software engineering. Without antitrust action from the DOJ/FTC, big tech will continue to crush domestic startups too or create a ceiling for how large they can grow in our market. And if unions lead to offshoring happening, we're fucked.
- __loam 2y ago
  If they can offshore your job because you joined a union they can do so if you didn't join one too.
  - echelon 2y ago
    It's more likely they'll offshore the union job. Unions lead to an ossified workforce where nobody does more than what is essential. New employees are jealous of tenured employees with more benefits. Once people get tenure, they'll take advantage of their status. This leads to lower productivity, not higher productivity. Without a union, you have people fighting to show their seniority and leadership at every level. The top 10% naturally sort themselves out. And the take home typically correlates with that. Union jobs get easier and cushier with tenure. Non-union jobs get harder the more you want from the job, but you are in control of your career progression and comp. And the strongest rise to the top. Switching jobs or unions will fuck with seniority, dues, etc., so it will become a factor in choosing jobs. It will likely lead to many more "lifers" who work at a single job for a long time. This leads to less knowledge and skill mobility, tighter code ownership (less fungible, less exposed to new ideas), and this will certainly lead to ossification of organizations and business functions. Businesses are probably more afraid of unions than they are high compensation.
    - 2y ago

lr4444lr 2y ago

As a fairly progressive news outlet attracting staff with certain sensibilties in the NYC area and selling views to people who are the same, the NYTimes board of directors has a vested PR interest in tolerating unions with the large amounts money they have to pay for the privilege. I'm not convinced the company is better served by unionized employees over the rest of the tech scene, which has to innovate to stay solvent. Knowing someone in tech there who refused to join the union, I was told these guys aren't particularly the best or smartest colleagues she's ever worked with to put it mildly.

jakelazaroff 2y ago
Sounds plausible, but that hypothesis is ultimately belied by the the NYT's actual stance toward their unions (which is hostile): https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/feb/01/leaked-messages-new-york-times-anti-union-strategy https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/feb/01/leaked-message... > The National Labor Relations Board rejected the New York Times’ attempt to stop the election, alleging the bargaining unit was improper. The company had previously declined to voluntarily recognize the union and immediately began holding anti-union captive audience meetings with workers. > The NewsGuild of New York filed a complaint earlier this month with the NLRB, accusing the Times of violating federal labor law by adding new paid days off to the company holiday calendar for non-union employees only – which was viewed as a tactic to dissuade workers from voting for the union. > After the complaint was filed, the New York Times made similar changes to its bereavement policy, making it applicable only to non-union workers. The union is collecting signatures as part of a public petition demanding the New York Times stop what it calls union-busting. > On 5 January, the NLRB filed a complaint against the Times, ruling the company violated federal labor law by telling some employees they could not show support for tech workers seeking to unionize.
- __loam 2y ago
  He forgot the neo when he called the times a liberal institution.
- c0redump 2y ago
  It’s funny how you have hard facts backed by citation, and the other poster has nothing but vibes and anecdotes. I don’t know if you convinced him, but you certainly make a compelling case for everyone else reading this exchange.
__loam 2y ago
> Knowing someone in tech there who refused to join the union, I was told these guys aren't particularly the best or smartest colleagues she's ever worked with to put it mildly. Hackernews poster go 5 minutes without insulting your peers challenge: impossible.
- Aeolun 2y ago
  I think the rub is that you don’t consider them peers at all?
Sir_Twist 2y ago
Forgive me if this is an overly-simplistic question – I'm a student, so there is a lot I don't know and this seems to be a complex topic, but I ask this in good faith: if the people that are members of the union are happy with it, what negative outcome is produced so as to make the union a bad solution? From what I understand, the basic purpose of a union is to give its members more collective negotiating power with the employer. Its purpose isn't to better serve the company, necessarily, but to give the employees a more effective means of having their needs met – if employees feel these needs aren't being met, negotiating and making an agreement collectively could be a more effective route. Its job is to change the power dynamic between employees and companies, in favor of the employees. If this is the case, and the NYTimes tech staff who are union members like the outcome unionizing has had, then how is it a bad solution? What would be a better alternative of meeting the employees' needs? I recognize my understanding is probably incomplete; I write this comment not to defend this position on unions, but to learn why it may be wrong.
- tim333 2y ago
  A general problem is it can make the industries less competitive and the companies struggle as work moves elsewhere. See the history of Detroit for example. A lot depends on the details.

echelon 2y ago

I made $450k TC in my last job. In Atlanta. I don't think we need unions to be treated well. Unions will kickstart the offshoring of our career. Just like every other place unions exist without a talent monopoly (manufacturing, automotive, and most recently film crews). Google is going to hire in developing markets and stop hiring domestically. Everyone else will follow. The talent in India is incredible these days. You can't knock them or call them less talented than US engineers. They're rock solid. And there are lots of other talented worldwide markets for software engineering. Without antitrust action from the DOJ/FTC, big tech will continue to crush domestic startups too or create a ceiling for how large they can grow in our market. And if unions lead to offshoring happening, we're fucked.

__loam 2y ago
If they can offshore your job because you joined a union they can do so if you didn't join one too.
- echelon 2y ago
  It's more likely they'll offshore the union job. Unions lead to an ossified workforce where nobody does more than what is essential. New employees are jealous of tenured employees with more benefits. Once people get tenure, they'll take advantage of their status. This leads to lower productivity, not higher productivity. Without a union, you have people fighting to show their seniority and leadership at every level. The top 10% naturally sort themselves out. And the take home typically correlates with that. Union jobs get easier and cushier with tenure. Non-union jobs get harder the more you want from the job, but you are in control of your career progression and comp. And the strongest rise to the top. Switching jobs or unions will fuck with seniority, dues, etc., so it will become a factor in choosing jobs. It will likely lead to many more "lifers" who work at a single job for a long time. This leads to less knowledge and skill mobility, tighter code ownership (less fungible, less exposed to new ideas), and this will certainly lead to ossification of organizations and business functions. Businesses are probably more afraid of unions than they are high compensation.
  - 2y ago