The Bizarre Demands Of Spoiled NY Times Tech Workers
The liberal rag known as the NY Times is reaping what they have sown. Their spoiled tech union workers are now threatening to strike at or around election day if particular demands are not met.
The union, which represents approximately 600 software engineers and other tech-oriented non-editorial workers at the Times, voted last week to authorize a strike. This raises the possibility that the work stoppage could occur during the peak traffic period around November’s battle for the White House.
The Times Tech Guild’s two-year battle for a contract includes a long list of demands, including many that are ridiculous. Things such as a four-day work week, job security for non-citizens who are in the United States on work visas in the event of layoffs, increased pay (which already averages $190k), unlimited break time, unlimited sick leave, paid pet bereavement time, increased benefits for “non-white” staff, mandatory “trigger warnings” at the top of meetings, the right to review op-eds before they’re published, and a ban on scents in break rooms.
Tech Guild members earn an average salary of $190,000 per year, which includes salary, bonuses, and restricted stock options. According to the company, this is about $40,000 more than what journalists in other unions at the publication earn.
The Times, led by chairman A.G. Sulzberger, stated that the guild’s economic demands would total over $100 million in compensation and benefits over the proposed three-year contract, as reported by Semafor.
The company stated that its employees currently receive $10,000 for adoption or surrogacy expenses, $50,000 for fertility care, and discounts on pet, home, and auto insurance.
In an interview with the NY Post, Times spokesperson Danielle Rhoads Ha said:
“The Times “looks forward to working with the group to reach a fair contract, that takes into account that they are already among the highest paid in the company and journalism is our top priority. Since July 2022, bargaining has been focusing on a broad range of non-economic proposals from the Tech Guild such as pet bereavement leave, unscented cleaning products, and banning machine learning among many other topics that are typically not part of collective bargaining agreements.”
The arrogant brats at the tech union admit that while they earn more than editorial employees, their wages pale in comparison to those of company executives.
“Times management likes to compare the journalists to the Tech Guild only when it suits them,” a Tech Guild spokesperson whined to Semafor.
“In terms of salaries, wages vary widely across both unions, but we are happy to discuss executive compensation relative to workers at the Times.”
The guild informed Semafor that it wants the collective bargaining agreement to address pay disparities between white and non-white employees and between men and women.
However, Rhoades Ha dismissed the guild’s claim, saying that the company did a large-scale analysis and found “no evidence of discrimination.”
“The Tech Guild leadership’s claims about gender and racial pay differences are connected to their methodology, which doesn’t compare the pay of employees performing similar work.”
The union is seeking increased funding for non-white staff members to attend conferences. They are also requesting language in the collective bargaining agreement that gives priority to non-citizens with work visas in the event of layoffs. However, these proposals could potentially violate employment laws.
Essentially, these snowflakes want “To have their cake and to eat it too.” They are looking for assurances that they have no right to ask for. They even want guarantees that they will be protected against the rise of artificial intelligence, which threatens to replace humans in the workforce.
The company claims that the tech workers want veto power over which news stories are published in the Times, “the ability to decline work based on advertisers, and a “right to request letters to the editor not be published.”
The Times said that these proposals “ran counter to our standards” and would have violated “ethical journalism standards” and thus “have no place in a collective bargaining agreement.”
It’s obvious that the Times is dealing with a union full of spoiled-rotten radicals who think they can demand the absurd and get it. This liberal idiocy is most certainly born out of the “anything goes” culture that permeates the Times, and now their leftist roosters have come home to roost.
I have no sympathy for the NY Times. They made their bed, and now they can lie in it. Frankly, having their leftist viewpoint silenced around election time would be welcomed.
