Tech employees in New York on strike discuss the impact of their labor action on election coverage: "No contract, no needle."

On Tuesday, the second day of the New York Times tech worker strike, hundreds of staffers picketed and chanted for a fair contract, leaving unclear how the country's largest newspaper would digitally cover the most important news day of the year.

Jeff Sisson, a Times engineer and Tech Guild member, told Planet Chronicle Digital outside the company's headquarters on Tuesday that they would like to get back to work, but the contract the company is not delivering fairly represents the work they do every election.

At midnight Monday, the Tech Guild's 600 members, who manage the paper's digital operations, went on strike because they couldn't reach a contract agreement.

Over two years, several union members have been negotiating with Times leadership, but it is uncertain what the paper's website will look like on election night as Americans decide between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris for president.

The Times' election needle, which predicts a candidate's chances of winning based on current numbers and future projections, may not be published on the site during the strike, as the tech team is responsible for the necessary infrastructure and data.

On Tuesday night, the NewsGuild union posted on X: "No contract, no needle." Earlier in the day, Chief political analyst Nate Cohn suggested that no needle was a possibility either.

Goran Svorcan-Merola, a senior software engineer at The Times and a member of the Tech Guild's bargaining committee, expressed his union's desire to reach a deal before the election.

"We gave management an offer back on Sunday, but we haven't heard from them since. We're hoping they come back to the table, but nothing yet. We have serious concerns with their latest counter to us."

He remarked, "Although I'm certain they're conversing with someone, it's not us."

Planet Chronicle Digital reported that members of the union will continue to strike beyond election day until an agreement is reached, but Svorcan-Merola emphasized that they are always open to negotiating.

Although the election week deadline is approaching, Svorcan-Merola stated that they provided management with sufficient time to reach an agreement before this week and that striking is not a decision they make lightly.

"We wanted to give management more time to reach a deal. However, the election is a time when our members are extremely stressed," he said. "We want to demonstrate that this is a significant moment for our labor and our work, and if you want us to be there, you must provide us with a fair deal."

Sisson, a Times principal engineer for storytelling and publishing, stated that striking is "not by choice" and he is uncertain about the website's appearance on election night.

"That's a great mystery," he said. "No one knows. I think that's a risk that me and my coworkers are very aware of. As I mentioned, we didn't want things to escalate to this point. I can't accurately predict what will happen next."

But, it could be business as usual, Sisson said.

"The mystery is part of the risk in this election," he stated. "We're not used to running elections this way. I've worked here and covered three presidential elections. This is not a typical election for us, and we're aware of it."

Sisson and his colleagues are requesting fair compensation, the ability to work remotely, and job security with a "just cause" clause, similar to what News Guild members have in their agreement.

According to him, some of this implies that they believe they can operate without our assistance, but we will soon discover the true extent of this on the night of the election, which is one of the most significant events of the year in terms of The New York Times' coverage.

The Tech Guild is advocating for similar protections as the News Guild has enjoyed for decades, according to Stacy Cowley, a Times business reporter.

"For two-and-a-half years, the Tech Guild has been fighting for the same job protections they had in their contract, but the company has refused to provide them with the exact same protections," she said. "That's really unconscionable."

Cowley stated that their strike is not motivated by smaller demands, as the Times has portrayed in its public statements.

"She argued that management's focus on pet bereavement leave and unscented products in the washroom was a cynical and bad faith move, as these issues were quickly dismissed during negotiations and have been off the table for over a year. She accused management of using these distractions to avoid discussing more important matters."

Cowley criticized the "hypocritical" stances of Times management, despite the paper's long-standing pro-union stance in its news coverage and editorials.

"It's disheartening that our tech workers took their strike authorization vote on September 10, two months ahead of schedule, with the intention of giving time to negotiate a deal," she stated.

"My colleagues are heartbroken to be out here doing this today," she said. "We have spent years building systems, graphics, and tools for today. We were thrilled to be in the newsroom working on election day."

The New York Times spokesperson conveyed to Planet Chronicle Digital the same sentiment of disappointment regarding the strike's timing as they did the previous day.

We are excited to continue collaborating with the Tech Guild to achieve a fair contract that recognizes their status as among the highest paid individual contributors in the company and prioritizes journalism," the spokesperson stated. "During this critical time of coverage, we have comprehensive plans in place to ensure that we fulfill our mission and provide our readers with the highest quality journalism possible.

"Although we acknowledge the union's right to undertake protected actions, we are dismayed that colleagues have chosen to strike at this moment, which is not only unwarranted but also contradicts our mission."