This strike seems very poorly messaged. As far as I can tell, the union hasn't given any public explanation of what specific demands management won't meet. The union website doesn't even mention that they're on strike!
https://www.theverge.com/2024/11/4/24287600/new-york-times-t...
I dunno. It is a negotiation between the union and the company. They might not have prepared much marketing material because they aren’t really selling anything to those of us in the general public, right?
But I think appealing to the general public is a tool in the toolset, something they consider, but not an automatic go-to. Ultimately, the NYT tech guild doesn’t actually want the general public to think their boss is a “bad guy,” right? Like, getting the general public to boycott their employer too effectively is a risk to their own paychecks, haha.
It seems like economists do consider this to be one of the big reasons why the U.S. economy has grown so much faster than the EU. Hiring in Europe is much riskier, so companies would rather stay small.
Yes, that means some companies might go under when they could have saved themselves by mass layoffs. I'd be okay with that trade.
Yes, that means growth might slow down to more reasonable levels. I'd be okay with that trade. Europe isn't booming economically like the US, but if you've ever traveled there, their quality of life seems perfectly fine, and costs are much lower.
This would be an extreme understatement.
> but if you've ever traveled there, their quality of life seems perfectly fine
I'm not sure if traveling there is much of an indicator of anything. Doing business there over the course of many years might be a very basic table stakes start to get any idea of what is happening. Even then it will have large blind spots. Most folks traveling to Europe are also traveling to the richest parts of the richest countries and ignoring the rest.
Inertia is a hell of a drug. For how much longer can western Europe stagnate and continue to fall behind the entire world little by little? There are bright spots, but those seem to becoming fewer and further in between. Talk with the younger generations and you may start to get different answers than you expect.
The US system certainly isn't how I'd design things today, but I very much would avoid what the EU is seemingly running headlong into. How much of that has to do with worker protection laws is certainly highly debatable though.
Relevant skill could be proper cause. You can absolutely fire someone for not having the skills you need and hire someone else with the right skillset.
Depending on the laws and the country, it involves consultations, handing out offers for alternative roles in the company, mandatory notice periods and timelines, and severance pay.
Or what many multinationals do, you offer non-legally-redundancy severance deals by paying the employees out.
Severance already happens in many industries in the US, however it’s generally only for those paid very well, which arguably need the legal protections less. So such laws are designed to level the play field and prevent abuse of the system. For instance, if you make an accountant redundant, you can’t go and hire another one for a period of time because that means the role was required the whole time. If you want to remove a specific person from a role, you fire them for cause (say bad culture fit or inadequate work) or offer them a payout to leave.
So these protections are always tradeoffs. You can actually earn more at the smaller companies and those places are typically good to get your foot in the door. The larger companies where these protections apply can afford to follow the process and having the process there gives stability that some people need in a career.
I actually think it comes down to the viewpoints on careers. There's no risk to any particular business since the laws are written to only target business that can reasonably follow the process. There is a different viewpoint on working at bigger stable companies vs smaller companies though. One's seen as a stable career and the others seen as temporary (of course exceptions apply).
FWIW, it looks like 11 US states have “Implied covenant-of-good-faith and fair dealing” which mean “an employee may only get fired for a reasonable, lawful, and sufficient reason.” The list is also interestingly bipartisan, Alabama, Utah, and Massachusetts are on there. And it must not hurt business too much, since Massachusetts has that very high GDPPP stat.
https://clockify.me/learn/business-management/at-will-employ...
There are shades of grey. Large institutions should fall back on other means (reduced hours, pay cuts, comfortable severance, longer heads-up for firing) before resorting to overnight-mass-layoffs.
> why the U.S. economy has grown so much faster than the EU
Again, shades of grey.
The economy is a means to an end. If economic growth leads to worse life-outcomes for the populace, when what's the point of having a 'powerful economy'. Now, govt. policies shouldn't knee cap the economy. But, let's not tunnel vision on it as the sole indicator of development.
In my experience, Europeans with a $80k wage live better lives than American tech workers on $300k. To put in concrete light : most American tech workers get 14 days of vacation a year. All that work and all that money, and you only get to enjoy 2 weeks a year in the world's richest country ? That's pathetic.
As a foreigner, do not forget that USA have several government layers, federal ones and state ones.
I strongly suspect that, as usual in discussions like this, by “foreigner” you specifically mean “European” or “Canadian” or “Australian”.
The US is surely not alone in having a relative lack of legally mandated job security.
Sure places like Saudi have literal slavery, but they don't pretend to value life either.
NYT isn't a highly regulated interstate employer like Boeing or the rail industry or the dockworkers so it's dispute with the union isn't a de-facto matter of national politics like those strikes were so appealing to the public to have a particular opinion on the matter is not of as much use therefore neither side of this dispute has invested heavily in it.