> One of the things they're striking against is arbitrary return to office mandates.
If it is arbitrary, why is the NYT seemingly standing firm on the issue? As the article tells, NYT have agreed to a seven month grace period to give workers a chance to get their houses in order. That is not indicative of an arbitrary move.
Perhaps you mean they are striking against mandates that are motivated by undisclosed reasons?
If it is arbitrary, why is the NYT seemingly standing firm on the issue?
You'll have to ask NYT management if you're curious why they're doing something. I can venture a guess though. A lot of companies use RTO mandates as a way to avoid layoffs (and the negative press and severance requirements that come with them). This seems to go hand in hand with the demand for "just cause".
As the article tells, NYT have agreed to a seven month grace period to give workers a chance to get their houses in order. That is not indicative of an arbitrary move.
> You'll have to ask NYT management if you're curious why they're doing something.
I don't have to ask them anything if they are truly doing it arbitrarily. That's the answer.
But the question is if you are confusing "arbitrary" with "not knowing". Which is I guess I am to take that the answer is yes, that you are confused, since you admit to not knowing – which means you can't know that it is arbitrary.
How did you end up so confused?
> This doesn't follow.
If it is arbitrary, why not institute it today on a whim (strike notwithstanding)? Why wait? This indicates that there is planning involved, which suggests that it isn't arbitrary. It does not prove it without a doubt, but when playing the odds…
If it is arbitrary, why is the NYT seemingly standing firm on the issue? As the article tells, NYT have agreed to a seven month grace period to give workers a chance to get their houses in order. That is not indicative of an arbitrary move.
Perhaps you mean they are striking against mandates that are motivated by undisclosed reasons?