[MisterBastahrd]

They have a union. They don't have to "move on." They get to negotiate. That's why they have a union. If more companies had unions, then more companies would be forced to treat their employees like people.

There's no data to support the idea that they have a massively bloated headcount. Just because you don't know the extent of what they do doesn't mean that they aren't doing it anyway.

[sonthonax]

They have at least 600 employees, get some perspective on just how much that is. It's least $150 million dollars a year in technology payroll alone. They have more technology workers than some major newspapers have in staff alone.

Why do you think that people on 200k should have a union? How does it benefit anyone besides people looking for sinecure jobs?

Unions were needed to combat the powers of corporations where you are in some ways trapped by the relationship; like miners in appalachia who had to fight cartels of mining companies who suppressed their wages; or teachers who have one state employer.

If you're a competent tech worker, you're at the other end of the spectrum. So much so you're generally advised to switch jobs every few years in order to maximise your salary. There's nothing binding you to a particular employer, particularly in New York!

To be honest, if you're a good technologist, you should be looking at making 400k a year in at a trading firm. If you're working for the NYT you're doing it because you're weirdly attracted to the prestige of working there, or you're looking for a cushy job.

If the job is no longer as cushy as you want, have the dignity to leave and find other employment rather than trying to hold your employer hostage.