Tech workers at The New York Times on Thursday voted in favor of certifying their union in a National Labor Relations Board election, making it one of the biggest tech unions in America.
The workers voted in favor, 404 to 88, easily reaching the needed majority of the ballots that were cast. A win means the union, the Times Tech Guild, can begin negotiations for a contract with management.
“We’re just elated and really soaking in what this means, not only for us as tech workers at The Times and for The New York Times but also for the tech industry as a whole,” said Nozlee Samadzadeh, a senior software engineer. “I think this is going to be the start of a wave of organizing in the tech industry.”
Ms. Samadzadeh said the union was eager to bargain a contract around issues “similar to what the newsroom unit has been fighting for — issues around pay, diversity and equity, a strong contract to make our workplace more fair.”
Danielle Rhoades Ha, a Times spokeswoman, said The Times looked forward to working with the union to establish a contract.
“We continue to believe this election process was critical so our colleagues could learn more about the union, hear both sides of the argument and, ultimately, make an informed decision,” she said.
The Times Tech Guild, which represents about 600 software engineers, product managers, designers, data analysts and other workers, asked The Times for voluntary recognition in April. The Times declined, so the matter went to a formal election through the labor board.
The labor board alleged in a complaint in January that The Times’s management had violated federal workplace law by preventing some employees from showing support for the union. A Times spokeswoman said at the time that the company disagreed with the allegations.
The Times Tech Guild is represented by the NewsGuild of New York, which also represents editorial workers at The New York Times and at Wirecutter, the company’s product-review website. In 2019, The Times voluntarily recognized the Wirecutter union.
Source: | This article originally belongs to Nytimes.com
