Hacker News Reader

Comment by lr4444lr | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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-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.

He forgot the neo when he called the times a liberal institution.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

I think the rub is that you don’t consider them peers at all?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com