Management would fold in 24 hours if they threatened to withhold Wordle.
That game must have one of the lowest labor to profit ratios of any product ever made. The interface maybe took a skilled web developer a few days and it has basically no upkeep after that. And it alone is prolly worth hundreds of millions in NYT games subscriptions. Crazy.
It was made by a single dude to play with his partner and then he published and NYT bought it
[NYT] says the workers, who are mostly engineers, are already among the highest paid at the company, earning an average salary of $190,000—$40,000 more than journalists in the Times Guild
Why are they striking? 190k is on the higher end even by Silicon Valley standards. (And 40k more than journalists??)
Ok, let me explain.
Money is probably the least important thing in a union contract. It’s always about rights.
Unionizing is the only way to escape the prostitution-like relationship of paid work. Accepting to being paid more is just accepting being a more expensive prostitute. “Here’s $100, now you do what the man says… Ok … $200?”
No, it’s never okay. No amount of money can ever make it okay. You should have the rights to choose how and when you do the thing that you’re offering as a paid service. That’s why you need a clear contract that outlines all of your rights.
In this case it’s about termination without cause. As an employee, you’ll want a binding contract, so you can plan ahead. Termination without cause is the employers trick to keep you on a one sided contract in which you’ll have to dance like a bear in a Russian circus, while the employer has no obligation to keep you fed once the show is over.
The reason they strike is that the employer has already abused this power.
Source?
The posted article and me.
I’m a union representative and it bothers me that people always jump to the $$$-question. That’s only rarely what strikes are about. Look at the ongoing Tesla strike in Sweden. They were paid over market wages and they still strike, because it’s not about pay.
My own contract doesn’t even mention pay, except that we have the right to annual negotiation. This right has lead to higher wages than any minimum wage agreement will ever do. We’re not here to fight for back pocket scrap metal, we just want a balanced relationship between employees and employers.
This is just difficult to see for anyone who is still working on the employers terms only, or someone who is used to consider jobs “take it or leave it”, instead of taking pride in what they do because they want to do the job.
That sounds more like an argument for journalists being better compensated too, rather than saying the software engineers should be happy with less.
You hear this a lot in nursing too when people talk about how nursing assistants should make more. “But that’s what I make and I have more education and am responsible for more!” Correct, your pay should rise as well.
The rich have gotten us so good at turning on each other… 🙁
And the solution to this is always to raise minimum wage, because skilled labor pay must be higher than unskilled labor pay. If minimum wage goes up, other wages must also go up in order to attract and keep workers in more demanding jobs. Raising minimum wage fixes wages across the board.
someone else’s shit sandwich doesn’t make mine taste any better.
The journalists should join them if they’re also unhappy.
It’s not. There wasn’t an argument. The question was “why are they striking?”
The article says why they want to strike, if you read it…
190k is definitely not on the high end by Silicon Valley-standards: https://www.levels.fyi/t/software-engineer/locations/san-francisco-bay-area
It’s irrelevant to the matter of whether they should strike or not, as well.
An argument against this is that far more people in that organization are far more deserving of more money than the engineers fucking with the Wordle frontend for 200k/yr. What about the other people? These people aren’t the ones who are being oppressed.
You’re playing into the hands of the owners by pitting different groups of workers against each other. I suggest that you stop doing that.
Incredibly wrong. It’s fun arguing on the internet with people who haven’t the slightest clue about what they’re arguing about. Jesus fuck-me Christ
So let me boil down the list of arguments in your refutation:
- Assert a belief about wrongness.
- Assert a belief about lack of knowledge
- Disregard provided proof contrary to own beliefs
- Present zero proof supporting own belief
- Expletive
Masterfully done, you should run for president. Moron.
