cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/21922063
cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/47170384
What were the demands? It’s unclear from the statement.
Also what did they get out of the strike? It sounds wrong that they’d still end the strike even if no demands were met
Strike as posturing is counter effective, it just sends the message to wait it out
No it sends the message that they can do it. And that is massive all on its own.
It’s designed to bring them to the table without starving the workers. Indefinite strikes would obviously be more effective but then you’re forgetting about the people who do need the jobs.
How many people can actually survive not working for months? Principles are great but so is paying rent.
If nothing changes they can just do it again and at a time that hurts them most. Like election week.
Striking without any demands is self congratulatory larping. Workers strike when they have demands to strengthen their negotiating position.
A “just because” strike is weird and undermines unions.
The Times Tech Guild’s decision to strike during the election is not coincidental. The strike comes after a two-and-a-half-year back-and-forth between the union and The New York Times. This September, the union gave Times management an ultimatum: if demands were not met before the Sunday leading up to election day, Times Tech Guild members would go on strike, leaving the news organization vulnerable.
That’s all well established. They have been negotiating for a long time.
What were the demands, and were they met? Or did the strike end for some other reason?
Set rules for on-call work during emergencies, defined rules for termination and communication regarding work from home policy changes.
The strike was called for the week of the election to put pressure on the negotiations. They are still ongoing.
Return without a deal? I’m not sure that’s going to be good for the union long-term.
So can I play wordle again?
Yes
