Hacker News Reader

Comment by ThinkBeat | Hacker News Reader

This is a great time for it, with the election on and the millions running into the pocket of mass media.

NYT should be highly motivated to negotiate a deal as soon as possible.

Absolutely. This is the worst job market for tech workers in probably 20 years. Many employed in tech are hoping to keep their job, let alone bargain for higher wages and remote work.

Hard to imagine this effort having as much leverage if it were to happen after the election.

In fact I'd wager that one of the reasons for the urgency on the workers' part is to lock up contracts before the election in order to prevent mass layoffs right after.

> urgency on the workers' part is to lock up contracts before the election in order to prevent mass layoffs right after.

If workers fear mass layoffs, going on strike is a bad idea. Instead, in such a situation the union should attempt to make an agreement with the employer of the kind "no salary increase (as it would be appropriate in consideration of the inflation), but job security for the next years".

Which is a great way to have a company full of people who can’t be fired with no motivation, harming the parent organization

This is trade-off that a company (and thee employee, too) has to make:

- does the company want to be able to easily get rid of "undesired"/"lazy" employees? For this option, it will likely have to pay bigger salaries.

- on the other hand, for the option to have job security, an employee will have to accept that the expected salary is lower, i.e. the company can save money on salaries, but cannot easily fire the employee.

Both are economically sensible solutions.

Unless the company needs us more than we need it and we can have both better security and higher salary?

> Unless the company needs us more than we need it and we can have both better security and higher salary?

Employees typically only have such a strong negotiation lever in good economic times, which I guess is currently not the case.

this only applies to the very senior and experienced people, like staff+ engineers who are not easily replaceable + have so much knowledge that company will suffer if they leave.

the rest of your average tech worker who pushes jsons from front-end to backend does not have much leverage and is easily replaceable with new college grad with chatGPT

Presumably striking isn't a great sign of motivation already. If you think you're so unimpactful that your job is at risk, you probably aren't very motivated.

Layoffs at big companies have nothing to do with individual impact.

There might be exceptions, and with companies that are cash-strapped (or smaller companies in general) the situation might be different.

But for big companies, it's just a matter of the executives deciding that they don't want to invest in a specific org/project anymore ( or they want to offshore ) and if you're in one of the affected orgs/projects, you're out of luck.

But presumably NYTimes doesn't employ that many people, and even fewer tech workers

> it's just a matter of the executives deciding that they don't want to invest in a specific org/project anymore ( or they want to offshore ) and if you're in one of the affected orgs/projects, you're out of luck

This seems really simplistic. It's certainly happened before, but it seems ludicrous to just assume that executive whim is always the cause. Another reason is if a company is doing badly financially, something needs to change.

It's not an either-or. When the company's doing badly financially and something needs to change, the mechanics of figuring out what needs to change involve a lot of executive judgment, which is not necessarily correlated with facts on the ground as the members of specific orgs or projects might see them.

Exactly why I would run far away from any workplace that unionized.

Because you get paid less and have to strike for a small raise.

Hanging the threat of layoffs over employees certainly motivates employees, in much the same way stack ranking does, but it does it in such a way that is ultimately destructive to the organization.

Your strawman is on fire.

Usually people can still be fired if they aren't performing their contractual obligations. That might get tricky for stuff like code, but the same can be said of the current performance structure.

> the union should attempt to make an agreement

They are literally striking because the company is refusing to negotiate with them.

> more than two years of bargaining

How is this a refusal to negotiate?

Saying "no" for two years is not a negotiation.

> Saying "no" for two years is not a negotiation.

What does the other side offer? If you want something from the other side, you better have something to offer which the other side wants:

"Give me a million USD, and I will smile!" - "No."

What you say is very true, but you're still missing the definition of a negotiation. The example you gave isn't negotiation. This is:

"Give me a million USD, and I will smile!" - "No. That's unreasonable, I'll give you 100,000, and you'll dance each time you see me.".

"Make it 300,000,and I'll fake that I like you." ...etc

Negotiating goes both ways.

Blocking off the other side is also a negotiation strategy; one that one applies for example if one considers the demands of the other side to be nutjob insane.

Both sides have been saying no for two years. Not just one.

Well that depends - are the layoffs because there is no money left, or is it because the company wants to allocate resources differently?

In the former case, you can't get blood from a stone. However in the latter, strikes can still be effective.

Sure, but every time I see 'It has been a very lean year for us' from executives, I immediately see Simpsons Burns cash fight. It is annoying how well they captured some US time transcending rituals of the upper class.

I'm not entirely clear that going into a potentially rough storm is a great time to rock the boat? Curious if you have any studies that show this is a good time?

Agreed that getting a contract sooner than later has to be a good idea. I'm actually surprised they have gone as long as they have with no contract.

Do you actually delegate your thinking to studies like this? If someone linked a study covering strike timing would you read it and make your opinion? this almost reads like a parody

If I was in a position where a decision impacted me directly, I would, of course, be willing to act on what information I have. As a non-impacted person, I'm afforded the luxury of seeking more information.

I am not, despite the tone from this discussion, specifically anti-union.

In the spirit of your post, though; I have grown rather suspicious of any cause that is so against getting more information. Putting the question back to you, if you saw data showing that going into a potential bad market was not the time to play extra hardball when you already lack a contract, would you consider it? I would hope the answer in both directions would be yes. (That is, if it shows this is a great time to do so, then they, of course, should!)

i don't handle difficult tactical political situations by resorting to academic studies because that's dumb so it wouldn't matter to me what a study says

This is dumb, though? For one, I don't necessarily care if it is an academic study. If you have any writings from experts, that would still be of interest to me. Hell, the entire point is to try and learn from something without having to do it.

For two, if you have so settled your view that you won't take any criticism or advice, why bother engaging in discussion? You are actively harmful to the public discourse, at this point. No?

I'm sympathetic in thinking someone is stalling in bad faith. But bad faith denouncing of their seriousness is not good, either. :(

> Absolutely. This is the worst job market for tech workers in probably 20 years.

Any sources for this? Asking out of curiosity—not disagreement.

Nope, hence the word probably. 100% anecdotal.

Last recession was 2008 and job prospects for a software dev are much worse now compared to then. Go back further and it was dotcom bust a little more than 20 years ago.

I think that's highly dependant how many years of experience you had. 2008 was definitely worse for inexperienced new grads than today, but today is probably worse for people in their peak earning years as companies are trimming the fat.

There are plenty of jobs out there right now, you just have to be willing to move and take a lower salary, which is much easier for young people than mid-career folks. The same definitely wasn't true in 2008.

There are still plenty of great high-paying jobs, they are just more competitive.

If you are a good engineer you won't have a problem aside from having to play the numbers game a bit more. There are still new grads being hired but it's definitely not as easy as it was.

> If you are a good engineer you won't have a problem

If companies on average knew who the 'good engineers' were, they wouldn't be laid off in the first place. (Unless the layoffs are really big).

The recruitment pipe is so convoluted nowadays that connections and recommendations are way more important than they used to be. Skills not so much.

I’ve been hearing the complete opposite on EU CS jobs Reddit. People say it’s impossible to get hired with no experience and just hard for seniors.

There’s so much of reporting and selection bias though.

The juniors say that juniors are most affected. The experienced developers and engineers say that it is the experienced developers and engineers most affected.

Everybody has their perspective.

In case of a recession, fresh grads are usually affected the worst. Really it makes sense, because work experience tends to be valued more than a degree.

https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/recessi...

I'm a senior and I would say juniors have it way harder. I could find a new job, new grads - yeah, gonna be hard. Money is tighter, and new grads are oftenly money sinks, thus no hiring.

I'm in EU but in the eastern part of it.

> 2008 was definitely worse for inexperienced new grads than today, but today is probably worse for people in their peak earning years as companies are trimming the fat.

So same people affected both times?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com