Hacker News Reader

Comment by marricks | Hacker News Reader

> when they have specific demands that management is able to meet

It's just wild how management is able to unilaterally decide what is and isn't reasonable, and just label unions as childish.

"We want to help you, but you're hurting us!" is one small step away from "gosh we love the idea of unions but it causes too much friction between workers and management, and trust me, management knows best."

View on HN

I don't think parent is defending the management here; rather pointing out that it's a strategic error to play your strongest negotiating card before you are ready to make the deal. True, the New York Times will miss out on the election coverage bonanza this time, but unless the union can say "sign here to make this problem go away" they are just hurting the management for nothing. I've only heard of the story today, but it doesn't sound like the union even has a written offer ready.

> "sign here to make this problem go away"

They been saying that about 2.5 years now. They have clear demands that the management can just accept.

Pretty sure they're ready to make the deal if they get just-cause, work from home, and salary.

It's been a long time they've been trying to make a deal so it's disingenuous to say they're pulling the card early. Management refused to come to the table until recently.

NY Times management has been accused of some extremely shady stuff. For example, their chief union negotiator is also responsible for disciplining wayward staff members. Union members who strongly advocate get more infractions and punishments than those who are passive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com