All here today to let the New York Times executives know that there
is no New York Times without your labor >> And we don't wanna go on strike but
management isn't listening to us by withholding our labor.
We are sending a clear message, they can't just give out stock dividends and
buybacks like candy to shareholders and not give us a fair share.
>> More than 1100 New York Times employees are currently undergoing a 24 hour
strike following 20 months of unsuccessful contract negotiations with executives.
Now, oftentimes when we think of print journalism and
how on a lot of it is dying and isn't profitable.
It's important to keep in mind that the New York Times is a completely different
animal.
Their profits are insane and the writers are rightly asking for
pay raises to share the wealth that they helped generate for the New York Times.
Now, this is the first major walk out at the times since 1981 and
even back then that strike only last 6.5 hours.
The strike today lasts a full 24 hours and they're asking users not to cross
the digital picket line by not using the New York Times site or
playing new York Times owned games like word all and the crossword puzzle.
And yes, if you were on twitter today, you probably noticed some people posting
their word all results on Twitter and getting some backlash for it, but
be kind, they might not know that there is a strike going on.
So just keep that in mind with that said though,
let's give you some details on what's transpiring here.
Now times guild members represented by news guild of
New York are pushing for a $65,000 salary floor and
funding employees, health insurance, sustainably.
So they are concerned with how the New York Times is actually
funding their health care plans less and less.
They're also concerned that looking at the amount of profits that
the New York Times has been making,
they're certainly not giving the writers the wage increases that they should be
getting their previous employee contract did expire March of 2021.
So last year and workers say that the cost of living,
understandably in a place like New York is incredibly expensive and
they need to make more money in order to be able to live in the city they work.
In now some workers have had to take second jobs just to make ends meet,
there are even some examples of workers taking money out of their retirement
plans in order to pay for housing and just the high cost of living in New York.
The union is arguing for a package that package of raises that works
out to a 5.25% overall annual raise over the four year period covered,
which includes the past two years.
The company's most recent offer as of late Tuesday night
represented exactly half of that.
I mean, okay, let me keep going, let me give you more details,
cuz I think their profits, you need to know about that.
In a letter to members this week,
union organizers wrote that we cannot get to a deal until the company makes wage and
benefit proposals that truly share the company's gains with its employees.
They accused the company Wednesday evening of failing to bargain in good faith, okay?
Now, yesterday, the New York Times guild,
which represents about 1400 New York Times workers announced their decision to
move forward with the walkout and they tweeted this.
There was good news and bad news after 12 hours of bargaining yesterday.
Our collective action is working management backed off its attempt
to kill our pension, Jesus Christ and agreed to expand fertility benefits.
But managers still barely budged on some of our most important priorities.
The company is stuck on poultry pay increases, eroding the minimum pay scales
for new hires and contributing less to our healthcare fund than they currently do.
And they've also failed to come to an agreement on requirements for
in person work.
So the whole remote work drama is still playing out at the New York Times as it is
in many other companies.
The guild said that management walked away from the table a little before 7 P.M.
and refused to return with five hours to go.
But let's talk about whether or
not the New York Times can actually afford this, right?
Because print journalism, it's just in a lot of trouble except for
the New York Times.
The New York Times share prices actually risen by about
half in the past four years.
The newspaper remains on a path to
15 million digital subscriptions by the end of 2027.
It recently acquired the Athletic for $550 million and
has embarked on an ambitious stock buyback initiative.
Top executives including CEO [Meredith Kopit] Levien in and
publisher A.G. Sulzberger have received major raises.
And the company pledged $150 million in stock buybacks this year alone,
and final graphic, I'll read to you because this is where the money is.
Executives said in their latest earning call that they had grown the news room and
projected a total adjusted operating profit of between 320 million and
330 million by the end of the year.
>> Yeah, so whenever you're looking at these stories what the general sense
of what the right and the left are gonna say, right?
But as usual we're balanced and we give you all the different perspectives,
so I would look at three different things.
Number one is, what is the health of the company,
is it barely surviving is it really profitable, what's to say?
Number two is, what are the market rates?
So hey, are they getting paid more or
have better benefits than the rest of the market or not.
So a company could be doing great, but
they might already be at market rates are above market rates, etc.
So okay, that's a factor and then of course inflation is a factor when you're
talking about percentage races, right?
So a 3% raise a couple of years ago might have been pretty good.
Now it doesn't even keep up with inflation, so
you're going backwards, right?
So now when you look at those factors in relation to the New York Times,
they're doing great, they're making over $300 million dollars in profit.
And by the way, there's nothing wrong with that, that's great.
And their executives getting racist, no problem,
you did a fantastic job you're one of the few companies that are making money.
I think the New York Times is very biased towards a pro corporate position.
>> Yes it is and I think that's an important part of the story,
which we'll get to come back to that.
>> But hey, they delivered on their job of being pro corporate well, so
they made a lot of money, right?
And so I don't begrudge their executives getting the money God bless I don't even
regard to buybacks.
But your employees were also part of that success, right?
And so in good times when you're doing well and by the way, and
a lot of the employees, including some of the prominent ones like film critic for
over 20 years said, hey, I remember when we had to cut back in lean times.
So now here we are in good times, why are you guys the only
ones getting a significant raise, that makes a lot of sense.
So given the totality of this circumstance, I think that the workers
are totally right and the New York Times is being counterproductive and obstinate.
>> I agree with you on that, so I can only be myself and
that's 100% honest with you guys because I almost didn't wanna
cover this story today because of the pro corporate coverage in the New York Times.
So here you have unionized workers who understand what it means to
be a worker in this country, a worker for a company that is publicly traded.
A company that has its fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders as
opposed to its workers.
A company that like any other corporate environment sees its workers as a massive
cost that needs to be cut down as much as humanly possible to increase profits.
So when you yourself as a writer at the New York Times have seen it,
have experienced it.
You know how the machine works, you know how the game is played,
maybe have a little more empathy for labor and for workers across the board.
You get what I'm saying?
>> Absolutely you know what I'd love to see,
I'd love to see a combination of all of their stories about the rail workers.
>> Yes, Junk okay, so, the way I wanted to produce this story, but
I didn't wanna cross the digital picket line.
So we didn't end up doing this,
is I wanted to see what their coverage of the rail workers strike look like, right?
Because everything that I saw from corporate media, was, if they go
on strike, it's gonna destroy the economy >> And the workers are putting the economy
in this situation >> Yeah exactly.
>> And most of the mainstream, again, we're being fair, because of the strike,
we didn't go on New York times etc.
And we're talking mainly about the mainstream press in general, okay?
But we did cover that story about a dozen times now, and almost all the mainstream
media articles said that the workers put the country and Biden etc.
In this situation, but they never clarified that not only could Biden forced
the strikers to take a deal, but could force management to take a deal.
And so that what that did was it created pressure on the workers, but
no pressure on management.
And if you thought the New York Times making a lot of money, the rail companies
are making $20 billion dollars in profits over a recent period of time, right?
So, but yet the reporters, the editors and
all the other people that work in mainstream media.
Although they might be workers in this context,
when they go to write the article, they're like, the workers and
they should be forced to do this and and poor management.
They never mentioned it, it's all the framing guys, it's all the framing.
>> And look, they have union protection.
And I think if you're a writer and you feel that your writing is edited down so
significantly by the editors where that kind of messaging and
that information is cut out.
I mean, maybe that needs to be part of the negotiations, right?
they never don't do that, ever and I'll tell you right now,
they might go on strike, they might go do all these things.
But if you say to an editor enough times, I think we're framing this wrong.
I think we need to be fair to labor, to the left,
to the average American etcetera.
You're not gonna advance, you might not get fired, you might, but if you don't
give you're never going to advance and everyone in the building knows it.
And this is not just exclusive the New York Times like in my book,
I write about how Ashley Banfield got moved into a closet
because she actually dared to tell the truth at MSNBC.
So this is the kind of things that workers know management loves the pro corporate
position and will not allow anything else.
So by the way, my book, you can find the link is just as this coming book dot com.
>> Okay, so someone on my team on the main show team producer Kate,
who you guys have met on the bonus episode before,
went on Google news and just searched New York Times.
Rail workers strike to see what headlines pop up she didn't click on them.
Here's some of the headlines, one from November
21st key freight rail union rejects deal increasing strike risk.
>> How about rail company refuses to give fair deal,
thereby increasing the risk of the economy turning down etcetera?
Like it makes it seem like the company has nothing to do with
>> The company is totally benign, right?
The management and the executives totally benign it's the workers,
they're increasing the risk of of a strike.
Here's another one from November 29th video Rail strike would put my God,
rail strike would put nation's economy at risk, Biden says that's the headline.
>> That sounds like the USA today headline that I yelled about over a decade
ago, right?
It makes it seem like just exactly what I told you earlier in this video where they
don't say all poor management or poor railroad companies, bad employees.
But look at the framing, the framing is the strikers are endangering the country,
the economy and poor Biden.
I literally said earlier in the video,
they make it seem like the strikers are hurting Biden but never is it discussed.
Hey, why don't the CEOs just give them a couple of sick days off?
So here the New York Times workers, I think are doing the right thing and
we wanna show solidarity with them.
But when you go back to work, please remember today,
when you're writing about other people and there were
>> Other labor struggles, yeah, exactly.