You find it reasonable. THe union, and I, do not find a RTO announcement in June (or anytime really) to be a reasonable request. So yes, the article justified the strike. You just don't think the justification is reasonable.
If they are tech workers who only need a laptop and can work remotely 3 days a week normally, and therefore 5 as well? Yes, its unreasonable as their specific location at a specific time is unnecessary. If you don't need to be physically present to work, then it is unreasonable to force someone to relocate or to come into an office.
Is it reasonable to tell your factory worker employees that they have to be at the factory at certain times? Yes, that's reasonable because these workers must be physically there.
Using broad words like "employees" and "employment" simplifies your thinking.
But you have no idea about internals of NYT, do you? You have no idea whats reasonable and whats not in their team.
BTW why people create a new accounts just to furiously comment all over pretty basic topics like this? Are you really that ashamed of your own opinions (which are still anonymous) or you feel your employer may trace you back? Or NYT employee?
It's not about the internals of NYT. It's 2024, WFH should be already a non-negotiable perk for tech employees because:
- the tech is there to offer this kind of work. It's not that NYT is somehow special about this
- it's better for the employees. Would we be in favour of companies asking to work 80h/week as a normal thing? Would we be in favour of companies asking to work 6 days per week? Maybe 100 years ago, but in 2024 the answer is (or should be) no. Why? Because we as employees have gained some rights over the last decades to make things better for ourselves. WFH is one more right in that list and shouldn't be taken as a privilege
I'm amazed by the people who are bashing against WFH. This is not about the free market, this is about moving the human race in the right direction.
Yet, strangely, your list doesn't contain any rights. Employers absolutely can ask you to work 80 hours per week / six days per week if they so choose (with assumptions about you being an average US resident; obviously jurisdictions can vary). You have the right to a higher rate of pay after a certain number of hours (with some exceptions) if you accept, but that's something quite different.
> WFH is one more right in that list
While rights can have exceptions, when those excepted are greater in numbers than than those eligible... Good luck! The right to higher pay if you work on location seems more politically tenable, but isn't that already priced in anyway?
> You don’t think it’s reasonable to tell your employees that as a condition of employment they have to be at a specific location at specific times?
You think it's reasonable to hire someone remotely, then later forcibly relocate them to another, more expensive city, with no compensation? Because that's what's happened here.
In jurisdictions with stronger labor laws, that is not only not reasonable, but outright illegal (constructive termination).
Of course it is reasonable. But it is equally reasonable for workers, as a condition of employment, to be able to work remotely. Everyone gets to choose what they want for themselves.
It’s a negotiation. What is reasonable is for the two parties to determine. But it’s not crazy to imagine. This is not Walter White asking to work remotely from a professional-grade chemistry lab. These are tech workers who can carry the professional-grade equipment in their backpacks.
