1: If a union strikes when it has too much leverage, there's a risk there as well at overplaying the hand. If the Times does just fine during the election, then the union helps make the case their members are overrated. If the Times crashes and burns during the election, they might make the value of the contract weaker.
2: In an election where trust and reliability of independent media are really being called into question, something like this could have outsized negative impact. There's potentially a lot of damage to innocent third parties, including smaller syndication partners.
Does SWE striking even mean anything to a company? If factory workers don't show up, no products are made. If a SWE doesn't show up, the website is just fine (see elon buys twitter).
SWE impact is measured in quarters or years, especially at a big company that doesn't have public deadlines for project delivery.
If you don’t have a fire department and your house catches on fire, it is an obvious demonstration of their value. Likewise, if NYT goes down tomorrow or they don’t have content to drive traffic, it shows management they can’t mess around. The best case scenario for management is a dip in traffic but no major issues.
Also, it takes two to tango. For any of the negative outcomes you mention, NYT management is equally to blame. Why is it the union’s responsibility to acquiesce to whatever terms to maintain trust and reliability?
When Rail unions in Europe strike during holidays, they do get leverage, but it infuriates the general public and creates a lot of bad press for the union.
Because waiting for the time when you can apply the most leverage is a shitty thing to do? How would you feel if your house was on fire and the fire fighters went on strike only then to demand they be given bounties?
They had a contract, waiting for the time when the work they do is absolutely critical is antisocial behavior. Society is built on people honoring their commitments.
> How would you feel if your house was on fire and the fire fighters went on strike only then to demand they be given bounties?
What a terrible analogy promoting a ridiculous narrative.
A better analogy is if it's the mayors house on fire, it was predetermined when exactly the mayors house would catch fire, the mayor had been warned well in advance of his house catching fire that the firefighters would like to negotiate their contract, and had in fact been involved in negotiations for years already. Not quite the same zing to it though...
If they didn't like their contract, the responsible thing to do would have been to go on strike earlier or quit. Waiting till the moment of maximal pain is just spiteful and done in bad faith.
Ultimately, labor unions exist to extract additional compensation from employers. Imo in cases where the employer can afford it and the employees in question are being unfairly treated, I think it's reasonable for them to quit or strike in good faith, but I don't think many of those things are true here.
Newspapers are barely surviving these days. These people took jobs at the nytimes knowing they wouldn't make big tech salaries, and most companies have ended WFH policies. If they can force the NYTimes to give them concessions by holding them hostage during one of the most contentious moments in US history, I won't admire them one bit.
Lastly, thanks for drawing that better comparison. It still wouldn't be right for the firefighters to let someone's house burn down in that case.
