The recent strike launched by the New York Times technology union has attracted widespread attention. The core demands of the strike were wage increases and adjustments to work patterns. Negotiations between the union and publishers broke down, ultimately leading to the strike. It is worth noting that the strike occurred on the eve of the US presidential election, and its time sensitivity exacerbated the complexity of the incident. The intervention of the CEO of artificial intelligence company Perplexity made the incident even more confusing.
The New York Times (NYT) technology union recently announced a strike to protest the company's failure to meet its demands, including an average annual wage increase of 2.5% and the consolidation of two days a week in office work requirements. The unions said they had no choice but to go on strike to demonstrate their power after repeated negotiations failed.
AG Sulzberger, publisher of the NYT, expressed concern about the strike, especially two days before the U.S. presidential election. He pointed out that hundreds of millions of readers rely on the reporting of the New York Times on Election Day and beyond. It seems very inappropriate for the union to choose to strike at this critical moment.
Amid protests by union members, Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas made a controversial offer on social media, offering his services to help the NYT ensure normal coverage during the election. His remarks triggered widespread attention and discussion, with many accusing him of acting as a "substitute," a behavior widely seen as unethical and that could weaken workers' ability to protest and negotiate.
Srinivas responded to Selzberg on social platforms, saying that Perplexity is ready to provide technical support to ensure that the flow of information can be maintained on high-traffic Election Day. However, the proposal was seen by striking workers as a direct challenge to their jobs, as they are the employees responsible for these technical support tasks.
Although Srinivas tried to explain that his proposal was not about replacing human jobs with AI, this did not calm the public opposition. Many believe that Perplexity's involvement may further aggravate conflicts within the NYT and make the union's position stronger.
In addition, the relationship between Perplexity and the NYT is already very tense. The NYT sent a cease-and-desist letter to the company last month, accusing it of unauthorized scraping of NYT articles for use in its AI models. When facing the media, Srinivas did not give a clear explanation for the word "plagiarism", further deepening the outside world's concerns about the relationship between the two parties.
Now, as the strike continues, the conflicts between the two sides seem to be getting more acute, and future developments have attracted much attention.
The editor of Downcodes concluded: The strike at the New York Times not only reflects the contradiction between labor and management in terms of wages and working conditions, but also triggers people's thinking about the ethics of the application of artificial intelligence technology. The intervention of Perplexity CEO has pushed the incident to the forefront of public opinion. The final outcome deserves continued attention.