The story is written by a reporter, Katie Robertson, who is also part of their own union (Times Guild).
The Times has been pretty good at covering itself imho.
This doesn't remove the conflict of interest because it's not the same union. Those in the other unions may well be more sympathetic to the company than to the strikers, especially given the timing of the strike.
It's likely interfering with their jobs right now in pursuit of a negotiation that they don't stand to gain from.
I really think this is silly. If there is anything specific you don't think the New York Times article is presenting fairly, please share that.
The comment I was replying to suggests the reporter is pro-NYT but you are suggesting that the reporter is pro-Union?
Maybe the reporter did a great job after all :)
> The Times has been pretty good and covering itself imho.
This is silly. It's like the people who say that the Bible is true because the Bible says the Bible is true.
Like I said, I don't get your analogy.
It's not obvious to me they have a bias here, but given the clear systemic issues in other reporting it's reasonable to bring a skeptical view to their own reporting.