Strange demands by NY Times tech union to avoid strike include four-day work week, ban on scents in break rooms

Tech union workers at the New York Times have threatened to strike on Election Day over a bizarre list of demands that include pet leave, a four-day work week — and even a ban on scented products in guest rooms. vacation, according to a report.

The Times Tech Guild’s list of demands during its two-year battle for a contract also included unlimited sick time and job security for non-citizens who are in the United States on work visas in the event of layoffs, it reported Traffic light.

The union — which represents about 600 software engineers and other technology-oriented, non-editorial workers at the Times — voted last week to authorize a strike, citing the prospect that a work stoppage could come during peak hours. traffic around the November battle for the White House, according to the paper.

Members of the Tech Association earn an average salary of $190,000 a year, which includes salary, bonuses and restricted stock options — about $40,000 more than their brethren in unions that represent publishing journalists, according to the company.

The company said its employees already receive $10,000 in reimbursement for adoption or surrogacy expenses, $50,000 for fertility care and discounts on pet, home and auto insurance.

The Times said the union’s economic demands would cost the company more than $100 million in compensation and benefits over the course of the proposed three-year contract, Semafor reported.

The Times “look[s] forward to working with the group to reach a fair contract that takes into account that they are already among the highest paid in the company and journalism is our top priority,” Times spokeswoman Danielle Rhoads Ha told The Post on Tuesday.

“Since July 2022, negotiations have focused on a wide range of non-economic proposals from the TechGuild, such as pet loss leave, unscented cleaning products and a ban on driving lessons, among many other topics that are not usually part of collective agreements.

The Tech Guild did not return The Post’s request for comment.

The union told Semaphore that it has already withdrawn or resolved some of the previous proposals without specifying which demands have been set aside. He accused the management of “an attempt to distract” by releasing the list of demands.

Tech workers say that while they earn more than newsroom workers, their salaries pale in comparison to those of corporate executives.

“Times management likes to compare journalists to the Tech Guild only when it suits them,” a Tech Guild spokesperson told Semaphore.

“In terms of pay, salaries vary widely across the two unions, but we are happy to discuss executive compensation in relation to workers at the Times.”

The union told Semaphore that it wants the collective agreement to correct disparities in wages between white and non-white workers, as well as between men and women.

Rhoades Ha disputed the union’s assertion, saying the company conducted an extensive analysis and found “no evidence of discrimination.”

“Guild Tech leadership’s claims of gender and racial pay gaps are tied to their methodology, which does not compare the pay of employees performing similar jobs,” said Rhoades Ha.

The union also wants more money for non-white staff so they can attend conferences, as well as language in the collective agreement that gives priority to non-citizens who are in the United States for holiday work visas. from work – proposals that may violate employment laws.

Tech workers also want assurances from management that they will be protected against the rise of artificial intelligence, which threatens to replace humans in the workforce.

The company claims tech workers want the right to veto which stories are published in the Times, as well as “the ability to reject advertiser-based work” and “the right to request that letters to the editor not be published.”

The Times said these proposals “contrary to our standards” and would have breached “ethical standards of journalism” and thus “would have no place in a collective agreement”.