I think the idea is that they can now go to the bargaining table and say, “see what happened when we stopped working?” and be in a stronger bargaining position.
I think the idea is that they can now go to the bargaining table and say, “see what happened when we stopped working?” and be in a stronger bargaining position.
Did anything happen, though? From what I can tell, NYT's election coverage went pretty smoothly. I followed the election from there with no issues. From what I gather, the only thing that was...
Did anything happen, though? From what I can tell, NYT's election coverage went pretty smoothly. I followed the election from there with no issues. From what I gather, the only thing that was missing was the statewide needle. I think the strike ended because they tried to use the election as leverage and it backfired on them.
What can happen, though? From their own press release, which should be as favorable as possible So the first claim is seemingly false, because believe me the needle worked on election night. The...
What can happen, though? From their own press release, which should be as favorable as possible
A statement released by the guild Monday, which represents more than 600 software developers and data analysts at the paper, called the strike “successful,” citing that their walkout meant that the Times’ election needle was not live on Election Night, apps were slow to load and emails contained “hundreds of thousands of broken links.”
So the first claim is seemingly false, because believe me the needle worked on election night. The actual impact then, was, uh, that apps were slow to load and emails had broken links. And that’s the best version of the story that can be told.
Somehow I don’t think NYT execs are quaking in their boots.
At the end of the day, NYT tech folks are genuinely good at their jobs and it’s a testament to their work that almost nothing reader facing broke during the election. But yeah, as @updawg said,...
At the end of the day, NYT tech folks are genuinely good at their jobs and it’s a testament to their work that almost nothing reader facing broke during the election.
But yeah, as @updawg said, the needle was rolled out in a much more limited capacity than initially intended. If I’m remembering correctly, they only had it for the presidential race, and that was potentially being updated manually; normally they have needles for every race that are all being automatically updated as results come in. I remember genuinely wishing I had the needle for the Senate and House races.
Slow apps and broken emails aren’t nothing, either. It was election night; if the app was updating or loading slowly, some real number of users were giving up and switching to the Washington Post app. Broken email links means an entire email campaign aimed at getting people onto NYT for the election coverage was probably a wash.
Tech production stoppages are more complicated to evaluate than a lot of traditional union production. Tech is very used to building for unknown failures and incorporating delays into timelines. Does it matter to the company that every single technical timeline across the company was just pushed back a week, meaning most that were meant to be done by end of year probably won’t anymore? Maybe! But like also maybe not. It’s too early to say. This was a real stress test of what a work stoppage in tech looks like, and I think we’ll have to wait a bit to see what it actually accomplished.
It’s complicated, but I don’t think it’s worth losing hope over. The threat of the strike led NYT management to spend untold sums of money hiring strike busting contractors and spending more time...
It’s complicated, but I don’t think it’s worth losing hope over. The threat of the strike led NYT management to spend untold sums of money hiring strike busting contractors and spending more time bargaining with the union in the week leading up to the strike than they had in the previous several months combined. The strike itself was hugely motivating for the unit (I was on the picket lines with them, it was wild) and most of the members seem energized, agitated, and much more willing to take action. Also 300,000 people played the union-made games alternatives during the strike!
The actions also haven’t stopped, only the work stoppage has. The unit is keeping up a constant flow of actions to continue to build solidarity and put pressure on management, and they’re getting more involvement than they were before the strike.
Also, things totally broke, just not user facing elections coverage things. 90% of the tech stack at the Times is either internal-facing or backend, and the pressure for not-very-technical managers and recently-hired contractors to keep those systems alive was non-trivial.
But yeah it also sucks that management didn’t fold during the strike. That was always going to be a tough sell; the NYT execs and board of directors have been fighting this union tooth and nail since it’s inception. Many board members are owners, board members, or shareholders in other tech companies, and would probably happily drown the NYT if it meant stalling the tech labor movement. It’s a brutal uphill battle, with the company spending considerably more on union busting than it would have cost to just accept most of the unit’s proposed contract language.
This is definitely not a clear win for the union, and they know it, but it’s too early to say whether it was a loss, yet, I think.
So they went on strike for a week and then stopped without a deal. Not sure this bodes well for their future endeavors.
I think the idea is that they can now go to the bargaining table and say, “see what happened when we stopped working?” and be in a stronger bargaining position.
Did anything happen, though? From what I can tell, NYT's election coverage went pretty smoothly. I followed the election from there with no issues. From what I gather, the only thing that was missing was the statewide needle. I think the strike ended because they tried to use the election as leverage and it backfired on them.
What can happen, though? From their own press release, which should be as favorable as possible
So the first claim is seemingly false, because believe me the needle worked on election night. The actual impact then, was, uh, that apps were slow to load and emails had broken links. And that’s the best version of the story that can be told.
Somehow I don’t think NYT execs are quaking in their boots.
It worked, but it wasn't live. I suspect that means that it required manual updates, which were probably conducted very rapidly.
At the end of the day, NYT tech folks are genuinely good at their jobs and it’s a testament to their work that almost nothing reader facing broke during the election.
But yeah, as @updawg said, the needle was rolled out in a much more limited capacity than initially intended. If I’m remembering correctly, they only had it for the presidential race, and that was potentially being updated manually; normally they have needles for every race that are all being automatically updated as results come in. I remember genuinely wishing I had the needle for the Senate and House races.
Slow apps and broken emails aren’t nothing, either. It was election night; if the app was updating or loading slowly, some real number of users were giving up and switching to the Washington Post app. Broken email links means an entire email campaign aimed at getting people onto NYT for the election coverage was probably a wash.
Tech production stoppages are more complicated to evaluate than a lot of traditional union production. Tech is very used to building for unknown failures and incorporating delays into timelines. Does it matter to the company that every single technical timeline across the company was just pushed back a week, meaning most that were meant to be done by end of year probably won’t anymore? Maybe! But like also maybe not. It’s too early to say. This was a real stress test of what a work stoppage in tech looks like, and I think we’ll have to wait a bit to see what it actually accomplished.
It’s complicated, but I don’t think it’s worth losing hope over. The threat of the strike led NYT management to spend untold sums of money hiring strike busting contractors and spending more time bargaining with the union in the week leading up to the strike than they had in the previous several months combined. The strike itself was hugely motivating for the unit (I was on the picket lines with them, it was wild) and most of the members seem energized, agitated, and much more willing to take action. Also 300,000 people played the union-made games alternatives during the strike!
The actions also haven’t stopped, only the work stoppage has. The unit is keeping up a constant flow of actions to continue to build solidarity and put pressure on management, and they’re getting more involvement than they were before the strike.
Also, things totally broke, just not user facing elections coverage things. 90% of the tech stack at the Times is either internal-facing or backend, and the pressure for not-very-technical managers and recently-hired contractors to keep those systems alive was non-trivial.
But yeah it also sucks that management didn’t fold during the strike. That was always going to be a tough sell; the NYT execs and board of directors have been fighting this union tooth and nail since it’s inception. Many board members are owners, board members, or shareholders in other tech companies, and would probably happily drown the NYT if it meant stalling the tech labor movement. It’s a brutal uphill battle, with the company spending considerably more on union busting than it would have cost to just accept most of the unit’s proposed contract language.
This is definitely not a clear win for the union, and they know it, but it’s too early to say whether it was a loss, yet, I think.
Archive link: https://archive.is/ErKiF
Back to playing Connections!