|
|
|
|
|
by hungie
643 days ago
|
|
If you want the Union's opinion, their strike demands are the place to look. If you want my opinion, what you've described would be a start. Or at least the workers there should be parties to a decision on whether that's the right decision. I'd consider lowering executive compensation as well. But there's many ways to achieve a balance within an organization that benefits the product and the workers. |
|
https://www.axios.com/2024/09/10/nyt-tech-union-strike-vote
> The New York Times Tech Guild, which represents more than 600 staffers, on Tuesday voted to authorize a strike in protest of stalled contract negotiations with The Times' management, sources confirmed to Axios.
I haven't found anything else. While stalled contract negotiations would be reasonable ("we're not going to work without a contract"), it appears that so far those negotiations aren't public for what it is that they want.
...
> I'd consider lowering executive compensation as well.
The CEO has a total compensation package of about $10M per year. Lets slash that to $4M (average for the size of the company of NYT is $8M - so half of what a CEO would get somewhere else) and divide that $6M up between 600 tech workers and they got a $10k pay raise. If this to be divided between all the workers for NYT, it's a $1k pay raise.
While we can bemoan the amounts that CEOs get, slashing the salaries will not often produce significant increases for the rest of the workers.