More than 600 staff members of the New York Times Tech Guild, including software engineers and data analysts, downed tools on the eve of America’s most important elections, protesting better pay and work conditions that will shield them from sudden termination.

On September 10, over 95 per cent of Tech Guild members voted to strike, targeting the critical period around the presidential elections when reader engagement would be at its peak.

The strike was timed to drive home their demands for a “just cause” clause in their contract that insulated them from sudden termination. Per the terms of “the just cause,” they could only be fired for “misconduct or another such reason; pay increases and pay equity; and return-to-office policies,” a report by The Times stated.

But the newspaper’s management said it had offered “2.5 per cent annual wage increase, a minimum 5 per cent pay increase for promotions and a $1,000 ratification bonus” to the Tech Guild and also given them permission to work remotely for three weeks in a year.

The Times tech workers were required to work in-office two days a week aside from the three months annual remote work, the management clarified.

The Guild seemed unmoved by the management’s actions and insisted on the “just cause” provision. Members of the Guild who worked on the back-end of The Times website said they would gather at 9:00 a.m. in front of the office daily to protest starting Monday.

“Our union members and bargaining committee have done everything to avoid this ULP strike,” said Tech Guild unit chair Kathy Zhang in a statement. “But management is more willing to risk our election coverage than they are to agree to a fair deal with its workers. They have left us no choice but to demonstrate the power of our labour on the picket line. Nevertheless, we stand ready to bargain and get this contract across the line.”

But New York Times spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha told Polygon in a statement that the newspaper was “disappointed that colleagues would strike at this time, which is both unnecessary and at odds with our (journalistic) mission.”

“We’re in one of the most consequential periods of coverage for our readers and have robust plans in place to ensure that we are able to fulfil our mission and serve our readers. While we respect the union’s right to engage in protected actions, we’re disappointed that colleagues would strike at this time, which is both unnecessary and at odds with our mission.”