[oconnore]

As I understand it, the earliest they could actually strike would be 80 days from today, as per the Taft-Hartley act, putting the strike on November 29 (after the election).

Something seems broken when a group is paid relatively fair wages (https://www.levels.fyi/companies/the-new-york-times-company/...), works 35 hours a week before overtime, and is talking about going on a strike. I don't think that fits with the original purpose of unions.

[addicted]

> The guild, which was formed in 2022, has yet to secure a contract after more than two years of bargaining.

This seems like a pretty reasonable reason to strike. Arguably it’s the most justifiable reason to strike.

[javagram]

NYT is the premier digital news outlet. Why should a principal SWE there get paid less than a senior SWE working on Google News, for instance?

If NYT has the money it makes sense to me for the employees to ask for higher pay. What else is the original purpose of unions than to give workers power to bargain with the company?

[shagie]

> Why should a principal SWE there get paid less than a senior SWE working on Google News, for instance?

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%28GOOGL%2C+NYT%29+reve...

    (GOOGL, NYT) revenue per employee

    Alphabet Class A Shares | $1.815 million (US dollars)
    New York Times Company  | $422656.27 (US dollars)

[hyperpape]

> Why should a principal SWE there get paid less than a senior SWE working on Google News, for instance?

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=google+ma...

[paulcole]

> NYT is the premier digital news outlet. Why should a principal SWE there get paid less than a senior SWE working on Google News, for instance?

Because it’s a different job at a different company?

I get that if you have leverage you may want to exert it (either individually or through a union) to get higher pay, but the argument that 2 different companies should pay the same amount seems ridiculous. Go get the job at the higher paying company if that’s what you want.

[cvwright]

I think the uncomfortable question for many here is, why should the SWE at Google get paid any more than the SWE at the NY Times?

[ynx]

That's not an uncomfortable question at all. SWE (and all employees) should be paid to the point that the owners of their company, while well-rewarded, are not sucking up a large percentage of global wealth personally...and that's the less adventurous answer.

[ExoticPearTree]

... right, because people start companies out of their philanthropic desires.

It is funny here how all the people are pro-union don't start their own companies to compete with the ones that exploit people and offer employees all the perks they ever dreamed of.

[Workaccount2]

It's even funnier when they do start their own company and immediately crank up the back-pedaling.

[paulcole]

Why is that an uncomfortable question?

Companies choose what they pay their employees (within the bounds of the law) and that might be influenced by what another company pays similar employees.

Imagine somebody at Google saying, “Sorry we won’t pay you more — just found out they pay less at the NYT.”

[ExoticPearTree]

> If NYT has the money it makes sense to me for the employees to ask for higher pay.

Nothing is stopping an employee from asking. Can they get more money? It depends on NYT if they want to pay more or find another employee who settles for less and fires the demanding employee. Win/Win for the company. Greed is good if it is within bounds.

[francisofascii]

I think the contention point is over remote work rights. I would gladly accept these salaries, but not if I have to commute into NYC almost every day.

[xvector]

Those wages are absolutely not fair in the era of modern tech comp. But IMHO people should just find a different job, there are plenty available that pay better.

[arunabha]

> But IMHO people should just find a different job, there are plenty available that pay better.

Genuine question, why is that better? There are plenty of reasons why employees might be overall ok with the job and prefer to work out improvements in specific areas. The generally accepted implicit rationale of all of the accommodation needing to be done by the employees(including finding another job) is honestly puzzling. I'm wondering if that is the consequence of employers having vastly more power over employees(esp in the US, with healthcare being tied to employment)

Should the default be a reasonable compromise between the two sides, vs the only recourse being employees leaving?

[xvector]

Unions are not effective at getting you to high comps. They will only get you to a middle of the road comp.

The seniority based structure is effectively a penalty on high achievers. Why should a union member be paid more just because they've worked there longer?

Big tech is a fantastic example of employment working without unions.

[arunabha]

But unions don't automatically imply seniority based wages, or even uniform wages. The SAG and the NFL players unions are the most obvious examples.

Also the last two years should have taught the tech rank and file that the good times don't always last. As much as we'd like to believer we all are 10x rockstar devs, the reality is that an overwhelming majority are not. Further, even being the 'best of the best' engineer is no guarantee that you won't be screwed over by management. Woz is a highly visible example and I guarantee you that the odds of anyone on HN(let alone the overall tech industry) being a better engineer are essentially zero.

[bee_rider]

Or they could unionize and then not have to do a bunch of annoying interviews and possibly move.