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.

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.

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.

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

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?

I made $450k TC in my last job. In Atlanta. I don't think we need unions to be treated well.

Unions will kickstart the offshoring of our career. Just like every other place unions exist without a talent monopoly (manufacturing, automotive, and most recently film crews).

Google is going to hire in developing markets and stop hiring domestically. Everyone else will follow. The talent in India is incredible these days. You can't knock them or call them less talented than US engineers. They're rock solid. And there are lots of other talented worldwide markets for software engineering.

Without antitrust action from the DOJ/FTC, big tech will continue to crush domestic startups too or create a ceiling for how large they can grow in our market.

And if unions lead to offshoring happening, we're fucked.

Both of these things can't be true at once†:

1. Tech workers are currently treated as well as (or better than) we would be without unions.

2. Unions would cause companies to offshore jobs to developing markets with similar talent.

If unions don't increase worker compensation, why would they cause companies to offshore jobs? Conversely, if companies could acquire comparable talent in emerging markets for less money, why aren't they doing that already?

† Or, rather, they could be, but it would mean companies leaving a lot of money on the table out of the goodness of their hearts.

Sure they can. Imagine the unions that make it hard to fire people - either because of individual performance, or because of downsizing.

1. Tech workers are currently treated well - good hours, good salary, great benefits, etc... (until they are fired / position is eliminated).

2. If unions appear which make firing people hard, companies would stop hiring in US, and switch to India or temp contractors.

Brother they’ve been threatening that for decades. If that was possible they would have done it 40 years ago.

Wake up. Engineers in other countries are just as good as we are. The only reason we don't hire remote is that the business functions here keep the same hours.

You throw unions into the mix and suddenly dealing with the time difference becomes the lesser evil.

I hire remote programmers in multiple countries. I absolutely know that they’re as good as we are.

I promise you that capitalists aren’t really concerned with time differences.

2. hasn't happened in Europe, where it's famously hard to fire people. Why would this happen in the US?

I suppose "treated well" is kinda nebulous. Personally, I'd say it encompasses job security, so if unions make it hard to fire people then they are improving treatment of workers.

> tech workers are currently treated well

I’m sorry, but you must not be paying attention to the current climate. To name one example, Facebook just laid off many workers and explicitly labeled them “low performers”.

Tech companies have already been caught colluding to suppress wages. They are sending as many jobs as they can overseas, and bringing in even more h1b workers.

It is clear to anyone that’s paying attention that they are doing their best to damage our negotiating position so that they no longer have to treat us well (read: fairly)

>If unions don't increase worker compensation, why would they cause companies to offshore jobs?

Because unions are a headache for management to deal with and that headache is much worse than compensation, which is a budget-line item, and doesn't personally impact anyone in management.

The AWU, for e.g, has political goals that represent what a small minority of Alphabet employees want but end up being a pain in a for anyone to deal with.

I assure you that management tracks budget-line items very closely, especially when they are the largest one (as is the case at almost all software companies).

> Unions will kickstart the offshoring of our career

People are offshoring right now, and increasingly so. A union is arguably one of the only tools left to prevent offshoring, short of government intervention.

how would that work? Maybe the current force is protected, but if there is no new US hires, then teams will slowly shift due to people retiring or leaving.

"sorry, no more open positions in the US... but don't worry, you are getting some helpers from India!"

That is the kind of thing a good union is supposed to fight against. People go on strike when offshoring happens.

There are simple location-based reasons why jobs wouldn't be offshored- longshoremen, electricians and plumbers, flight attendants (for USA based airlines), and also the NYT tech staff are unlikely to be offshored.

I'm still not sure that unions don't make sense for tech- it seems like the idea that tech workers need protection from their employers is gaining ground.

I also think there are still a lot of reasons why unions don't make sense.

    > also the NYT tech staff are unlikely to be offshored

I agree with most of your list, but not this one. Tech staff is one of the easiest jobs to offshore. It has been happening since the early 2000s in the US to lower cost locations (mostly India, the others later). Is there anything special about the NYT tech staff that makes them less likely to be offshored?

Well clearly you don’t need a tech union.

But with tech unions, situations like the parent's become non-existent because individuals can't negotiate for themselves.

I've been in three different unions in my life. All three exploited me. All three were in the employer's pocket. All three unfairly distributed the work so that the union rep and their friends got the easiest work and the best pay. All three made sure I was paid the minimum.

My computer skills are what finally allowed me to punch my own ticket. I'll be damned if I hand that power back over to someone else.

If they can offshore your job because you joined a union they can do so if you didn't join one too.

It's more likely they'll offshore the union job.

Unions lead to an ossified workforce where nobody does more than what is essential. New employees are jealous of tenured employees with more benefits. Once people get tenure, they'll take advantage of their status. This leads to lower productivity, not higher productivity.

Without a union, you have people fighting to show their seniority and leadership at every level. The top 10% naturally sort themselves out. And the take home typically correlates with that.

Union jobs get easier and cushier with tenure.

Non-union jobs get harder the more you want from the job, but you are in control of your career progression and comp. And the strongest rise to the top.

Switching jobs or unions will fuck with seniority, dues, etc., so it will become a factor in choosing jobs. It will likely lead to many more "lifers" who work at a single job for a long time. This leads to less knowledge and skill mobility, tighter code ownership (less fungible, less exposed to new ideas), and this will certainly lead to ossification of organizations and business functions.

Businesses are probably more afraid of unions than they are high compensation.

> Unions lead to an ossified workforce where nobody does more than what is essential.

> It will likely lead to many more "lifers" who work at a single job for a long time. This leads to less knowledge and skill mobility, tighter code ownership (less fungible, less exposed to new ideas), and this will certainly lead to ossification of organizations and business functions.

Funny, you just described basically every large company I have ever worked at. None of them were really unionized (one did have a union but it was very small).

It’s so wild to hear capitalist talking points come from a worker.