Hacker News Reader

Comment by raldi | Hacker News Reader

What always amazes me about this video is how on-board the workforce was with the change -- it was an era of stronger unions, which ensured they'd all keep their jobs for life and be trained to use the new tools, so of course they embraced the new way of doing things.

https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1974/07/29/797...

View on HN

My father ran a small-town newspaper and tells me that the printers unions were very strong. When he finally did away with the linotype machines, the operators were guaranteed lifetime employment. When my father finally retired decades later, he still had some of the original linotype operators doing what he called make-work jobs. Many of these operators were never able to pick up the new required skills, but he had to find something for them to do because of the union contract. Not a good situation for anyone.

I mean it sounds like an alright situation in a country without any form of proper safety net.

It's definitely not ideal, but it's something.

The United States has a perfectly capable social safety net.[0]

It makes no sense to employ people unproductively. If you believe that your work should have meaning, this would be the ultimate insult.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_...

This (interesting) article was posted downthread, and makes it clear that the change wasn't accepted by the union. The good times never were:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/02/insider/1966-2016-the-las...

"Staggered by their losses during a 114-day strike led by New York Typographical Union No. 6, from late 1962 to early 1963, the city’s publishers resolved to begin automating their composing rooms as quickly as possible. Just as quickly, the union shops, or “chapels,” began pushing back."

"But it would not be until July 1974 that Big Six and The Times and Daily News reached a landmark agreement. Their new contract freed the publishers to introduce automation, while effectively guaranteeing lifetime job security to 1,785 situation-holders and full-time substitutes, 810 of whom were at The Times"

Huh? That quote says the union negotiated a deal that did exactly what I said it did. The subject of the piece continued to work at the Times for another 38 years, until his voluntary retirement.

During their work with Linotype they got into close contact with lead, this often leads to lead poisoning. I guess they would have retired relatively early. For all the nostalgia people tend to forget that this stuff was a health hazard.

https://rarecachebroadcast.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/linotype...

Raldi said that innovation is easier when it is not in conflict with peoples' livelihood; not that innovation shouldn't happen. (Eg, when changing printing methods won't put most workers on the street)

The first quote says they resisted it. The second says it took them over a decade to reach an agreement. And if you don't believe the quotes, you can read the article, which emphasizes the same thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com