I think all we need to see is a compensation package equivalent to big tech or even greater, amplified by shares and the trendiest cliff for vesting, and tech unions will take off nationwide
As someone who's been both a union member and on the management side, it's frustrating when all sides don't realize that unions don't magically make money available to distribute to employees. There is certainly the argument that money needs to be distributed more equitably, but in a lot of cases (having seen this directly) there is simply not much money to move around.
Certainly, I'd love it if Google's never-ending money spigot was available to all.
Their tech team isn't that big, their $8bn marketcap could handle the share grants.
I had been critical of how wages haven't kept up with expenses for 30 years, while enamored by big tech compensation packages. In my analysis, big tech compensation packages are only reaching parity with the model of what wages would look like if they kept up with expenses, in which case I still shouldn't be impressed or worry about a comparison to what other fields are making. If value can be rationalized, and collective bargaining can extract it, then do that, I’m into it now since we’re close.
> Adjusted operating profit margin (adjusted operating profit expressed as a percentage of revenues) increased to 16.1% in 2023, compared with 15.1% in 2022.
You might also look into the NYT's recent history of stock buybacks while denying raises to their lowest-paid employees. The money is there.
I was just pushing back against using "big tech comp packages" as some sort of baseline for what unions should be pushing for. It is completely unrealistic and people who say stuff like this hurt their own cause by not living in reality.
In June it was 10.6%, in March it was 6.9%
my primary observation is that the world NY Times was formed or floated shares in didn't have the same shareholder tolerances that exist now
tech companies are controlled by one or two key founders, which wouldn't fly at one point, with rampant dilution
they rely on the appetite of the market, and in some other risk on stock markets around the world, even more extremes are seen to fit the appetite of the market
nobody is suggesting its a free lunch, if the market tolerates it then its available to attract talent competitively, or for talent to collectively bargain to extract that value
with the dilution not occurring all at once, I bet you’d be surprised what shareholders would tolerate
The thing I think that is highly ironic is that a huge reason you are "enamored with big tech pay packages" is that they're enormous, and a huge reason they're enormous is they sucked up a ton of the revenue that used to go to newspapers.
I think fair equity grants are a great idea, but as another commenter said I don't see why this should in any way be specific to the tech team. What I think is just darn right silly is to compare compensation packages at any newspaper with big tech. It's simply unrealistic to think that there is enough money at other companies to pay those extremely high salaries.
Here's a very easy exercise for you: I haven't looked it up, but I'd be definitely willing to bet per-employee average compensation at, say, Google or Facebook is higher than per-employee revenue at the NYT.
the current structure mandates that other teams have to advocate for themselves, and we’ll find out whats worth what