Vox Media is cutting pay and furloughing 9% of employees(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Vox Media is cutting pay and furloughing 9% of employees
https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/17/vox-media-furloughs/
80 comments
I made this point earlier, but contrast the difference in tone between Vox workers and Amazon workers in what is really a very similar dispute. Cultivating a healthy working relationship with your unions means that when the world blows up, making hard choices doesn't get covered as an existential disaster.
Also notice how Vox workers have a union, while Amazon workers don’t.
Which is sort of the point. Amazon resisted unionization (in the US), almost to a fault. And in the process they ended up offering things like salary and benefits that were quite generous within the relevant industries, precisely to prevent unionization.
And yet it's all blown up. Because while sure: they offer a $15 wage and retraining and all that, what they don't have is a union organization on the other side of the table who they trust to act in mutual self interest.
So when Vox runs out of money, their unions are willing to accept that and broadly trust the management to do the right thing for everyone, Amazon's workers are faced with trying to Get Theirs before their employer runs out of cash, because they don't trust Bezos.
And this was all avoidable.
And yet it's all blown up. Because while sure: they offer a $15 wage and retraining and all that, what they don't have is a union organization on the other side of the table who they trust to act in mutual self interest.
So when Vox runs out of money, their unions are willing to accept that and broadly trust the management to do the right thing for everyone, Amazon's workers are faced with trying to Get Theirs before their employer runs out of cash, because they don't trust Bezos.
And this was all avoidable.
I think this is basically par for the course for media organisations. Let's face it, ad spend is gone and it's not going to be coming back for a while. I suspect we'll be see a lot more of this coming in the near future.
The context is interesting:
https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1248317812260499456
https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1248317824394653697
https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1248317820800086016
https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1248318363538837504
The same company that considerably increased the damage the virus did in their country is now in financial difficulty as a result. They mocked people for avoiding handshakes, repeatedly told people that masks were ineffective and dismissed the virus as just a flu.
It's also interesting their political opponents, including the president adopted their original positions a few weeks later.
It's mind-boggling that analysis of the severity of a virus became so highly politicized. I don't think the same could have happened in the US a generation ago.
https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1248317812260499456
https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1248317824394653697
https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1248317820800086016
https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1248318363538837504
The same company that considerably increased the damage the virus did in their country is now in financial difficulty as a result. They mocked people for avoiding handshakes, repeatedly told people that masks were ineffective and dismissed the virus as just a flu.
It's also interesting their political opponents, including the president adopted their original positions a few weeks later.
It's mind-boggling that analysis of the severity of a virus became so highly politicized. I don't think the same could have happened in the US a generation ago.
I would say don't use the news that lots of people are losing their jobs at News Outlet X to say News Outlet X is a bad news outlet. Feels opportunistic at best.
If a news outlet is struggling that means readership is down. If readership is down that implies they are not producing a product worthy of people’s time. Seems bad to me.
You may have heard there's a real bad economic thing happening right now. Vox the website even explains what's going on [1] (notably they're reporting record readership).
[1]: https://www.vox.com/2020/4/8/21212928/voxs-audience-support-...
[1]: https://www.vox.com/2020/4/8/21212928/voxs-audience-support-...
First tweet: Vox saying face masks aren't the best way to avoid Coronavirus. Actually basically the mainstream view in the US at the time, and still arguable. Note how right now the states aren't mandating masks, they're mandating social isolation.
Second tweet: Vox factually reporting the tech industry is eschewing handshakes. Tweet author editorialises that Vox is telling them not to.
Third Tweet: Vox factually reporting that tech companies are providing 9million masks. Factually states that it's not enough to solve the problem. Tweet author contends that's not true - but provides no evidence .
Fourth tweet: Author tries to claim Vox is responsible for Coronavirus.
I find this hilarious, because we all know perfectly well, if that tweeter had found a Vox contributer tweeting that 4th tweet he'd be apoplectic.
I'm sure this tweet thread has nothing to do with Vox's coverage of that tweeter and his previous attacks on the FDA: https://www.vox.com/2017/1/14/14276530/balaji-srinivasan-tru...
Second tweet: Vox factually reporting the tech industry is eschewing handshakes. Tweet author editorialises that Vox is telling them not to.
Third Tweet: Vox factually reporting that tech companies are providing 9million masks. Factually states that it's not enough to solve the problem. Tweet author contends that's not true - but provides no evidence .
Fourth tweet: Author tries to claim Vox is responsible for Coronavirus.
I find this hilarious, because we all know perfectly well, if that tweeter had found a Vox contributer tweeting that 4th tweet he'd be apoplectic.
I'm sure this tweet thread has nothing to do with Vox's coverage of that tweeter and his previous attacks on the FDA: https://www.vox.com/2017/1/14/14276530/balaji-srinivasan-tru...
> Vox factually reporting the tech industry is eschewing handshakes. Tweet author editorialises that Vox is telling them not to.
When you describe techies as terrified in the context of handshakes you make them sound terrified of handshakes which makes them look irrational to the average person.
When you immediately follow that up with “experts” saying everything is fine you cement the view in the readers mind that tech people are acting irrationally.
When you describe techies as terrified in the context of handshakes you make them sound terrified of handshakes which makes them look irrational to the average person.
When you immediately follow that up with “experts” saying everything is fine you cement the view in the readers mind that tech people are acting irrationally.
Look, as a journalist, what are you supposed to do? You don't actually know much - its not expected that you know everything about everything (who does). So you do journalism. You investigate and replay back your findings.
"Vox factually reporting the tech industry is eschewing handshakes" Is this a fact, or a lie? Did Vox fabricate this, or did they misconstrue and mislead?
"“experts” saying everything is fine" Did "experts" say everything is fine, or did they not? Again, is Vox outright lying? Did they mislead by picking poor "experts"?
I think that Vox.com's "assertive contrarian" tone-of-voice might have created some posts that look poor in hindsight (erring on the side of "not killing people" is probably for the best), but lets a) actually define the assertions against Vox's journalistic integrity and b) acknowledge that health officials were not exactly clear, consistent, and eventually correct.
"Vox factually reporting the tech industry is eschewing handshakes" Is this a fact, or a lie? Did Vox fabricate this, or did they misconstrue and mislead?
"“experts” saying everything is fine" Did "experts" say everything is fine, or did they not? Again, is Vox outright lying? Did they mislead by picking poor "experts"?
I think that Vox.com's "assertive contrarian" tone-of-voice might have created some posts that look poor in hindsight (erring on the side of "not killing people" is probably for the best), but lets a) actually define the assertions against Vox's journalistic integrity and b) acknowledge that health officials were not exactly clear, consistent, and eventually correct.
Vox got a lot wrong, and he goes through all they go wrong on his tweet.
https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1228447944287932416
But more importantly a week before the article came out, he said the article won't be about the very real risk of the coronavirus but about how tech guys are weird. And that's exactly the theme of the article.
https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1228447944287932416
But more importantly a week before the article came out, he said the article won't be about the very real risk of the coronavirus but about how tech guys are weird. And that's exactly the theme of the article.
Well if you want to be a useful journalist you start by not sensationalizing things or carefully framing facts in a way to push a specific narrative.
Being a useful journalist is not profitable though, even when there isn't a pandemic.
Being a useful journalist is not profitable though, even when there isn't a pandemic.
What is the role of journalists? The defence that "basically the mainstream view in the US at the time" seems to me the antithesis of why we need journalists at all.
Far too much journalism is either weakly factual, where ideas like masks are taken prima facie and without much thought, or opinion pieces with an ideological bent.
What happened to investigating ideas, to see where they lead? To questioning everyone, no matter their credentials?
The role I would hope journalists would play is to hold people accountable, to question deeply the assumptions that "the mainstream view" entails. This Eric Weinstein tweet hit this home for me: https://twitter.com/ericrweinstein/status/124298155901717299..., which ends with:
> Bring us the heads of the incompetent for removal.
Far too much journalism is either weakly factual, where ideas like masks are taken prima facie and without much thought, or opinion pieces with an ideological bent.
What happened to investigating ideas, to see where they lead? To questioning everyone, no matter their credentials?
The role I would hope journalists would play is to hold people accountable, to question deeply the assumptions that "the mainstream view" entails. This Eric Weinstein tweet hit this home for me: https://twitter.com/ericrweinstein/status/124298155901717299..., which ends with:
> Bring us the heads of the incompetent for removal.
It wasn't only the mainstream view in the US, it was the leading medical advice by the World Health Organisation. This isn't a matter of questioning politicians, but of trusting reputed experts and expert authorities on technical matters.
Tedros, the current director general of the WHO, was credibly accused of covering up three cholera epidemics in his home country before he managed to get his current position.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/health/candidate-who-dire...
Also see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22872958
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/13/health/candidate-who-dire...
Also see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22872958
Are you sure that WHO is run by reputed experts and not by career bureaucrats whose motivation is mostly political, not medical? Because after the whole thing unfolded, it seems to be exactly the case.
> Vox saying face masks aren't the best way to avoid Coronavirus. Actually basically the mainstream view in the US at the time
It was the mainstream view in the US because the media built the narrative that masks wouldn’t help...
It was the mainstream view in the US because the media built the narrative that masks wouldn’t help...
They were reporting what the CDC told them.
You report things that happen, e.g. crash happened on X road. You can report that "CDC says mask don't work" but if you write it as truth, which Vox stated in January, you are either a parrot or inept.
If journalism is just reporting what others say, and not questioning what they say and the underlying assumptions, then it is at best just a weak form of Wikipedia, and at worst a propaganda mechanism.
Journalists need to get some teeth back and challenge authorities rather than relying on what is said as gospel. Jounalists should have led the charge on all of this, starting with questioning Chinese numbers through to Masks and the assumptions of the modelling, rather than playing, to be kind, catch up and to be mean interference on people doing their job for them.
If journalism is just reporting what others say, and not questioning what they say and the underlying assumptions, then it is at best just a weak form of Wikipedia, and at worst a propaganda mechanism.
Journalists need to get some teeth back and challenge authorities rather than relying on what is said as gospel. Jounalists should have led the charge on all of this, starting with questioning Chinese numbers through to Masks and the assumptions of the modelling, rather than playing, to be kind, catch up and to be mean interference on people doing their job for them.
Mathematicians report 1+1=2. Where do you draw the line? At some point you need to draw the line and say "Actually, my article isn't an expose on the CDC." It's not the job of every journalist at every second to be challenging literally everything. At the end of February the US Surgeon General was not just telling people that masks don't help - he said:
> U.S. Surgeon General @Surgeon_General Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS!
>They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!
I completely agree that someone should be questioning when the CDC says "Masks don't help", but firstly, you need to be really damn sure if you're going to second guess the CDC on the eve of a pandemic, and secondly, it's not everyone's job to be writing that story. Someone should, but for every earth shattering pullitzer prize winner, there's going to be 1000 articles that just adhered to the status quo and that's not neccessarily a bad thing.
> U.S. Surgeon General @Surgeon_General Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS!
>They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!
I completely agree that someone should be questioning when the CDC says "Masks don't help", but firstly, you need to be really damn sure if you're going to second guess the CDC on the eve of a pandemic, and secondly, it's not everyone's job to be writing that story. Someone should, but for every earth shattering pullitzer prize winner, there's going to be 1000 articles that just adhered to the status quo and that's not neccessarily a bad thing.
> Mathematicians report 1+1=2. We investigated, and found no credible dissenting voices
That's reporting. Which leads to this:
> WHO and CDC say masks ineffective. We investigated and found the one study they relied on was flawed, as these credible experts who disagree explain.
That's reporting. Which leads to this:
> WHO and CDC say masks ineffective. We investigated and found the one study they relied on was flawed, as these credible experts who disagree explain.
> First tweet: Vox saying face masks aren't the best way to avoid Coronavirus. Actually basically the mainstream view in the US at the time,
Well, it was definitely mainstream after Vox reported on it.
Well, it was definitely mainstream after Vox reported on it.
I am not sure if the comment to which you are replying has since been edited, but the first tweet is a comparison of a Vox article from February, advising against buying face masks, next to a tweet by Vox's founder, saying he ordered his in February when they were available. I agree that that is not a reasonable comparison because the article was not written by the founder, but your commentary does not reflect the essence of (current) first tweet.
Almost makes you wonder if balajis has a personal gripe with vox or recode or Ezra or Kara.
Balaji is a crypto bro and epitome of technocrats who thinks just because they are (rich|famous|networked), they are experts on everything. Fact of the matter is, Balaji doesn't know any more about Covid than what is reported. He's using hindsight bias to claim that media reported was false.
Balaji is a crypto bro and epitome of technocrats who thinks just because they are (rich|famous|networked), they are experts on everything. Fact of the matter is, Balaji doesn't know any more about Covid than what is reported. He's using hindsight bias to claim that media reported was false.
Please keep personal attacks off HN, regardless of whom you're attacking. Maybe you don't owe crypto bros better, but you owe this community better if you're posting here. Your comment would be fine with just the last two sentences.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
>> Balaji is a crypto bro and epitome of technocrats who thinks just because they are (rich|famous|networked), they are experts on everything. Fact of the matter is, Balaji doesn't know any more about Covid than what is reported. He's using hindsight bias to claim that media reported was false.
This is definitely not correct.
Balaji taught bioinformatics at Stanford and has published papers in the fields of clinical/microbial genomics.
As for hindsight bias, Balaji was promoting the use of masks very early.
This is definitely not correct.
Balaji taught bioinformatics at Stanford and has published papers in the fields of clinical/microbial genomics.
As for hindsight bias, Balaji was promoting the use of masks very early.
Whatever. Thanks to him i knew about Coronavirus and warned everyone back in February.
You re making the exact same remarks that tech hating journos did
If you re claiming the journos knew something he didnt, then it means they criminally misreported it
You re making the exact same remarks that tech hating journos did
If you re claiming the journos knew something he didnt, then it means they criminally misreported it
> criminally misreported it
What law dictates that?
What law dictates that?
About those mask recommendations...
Edit: Surgical masks vs respirators. Any advice omitting the distinction is suboptimal.
Surgical masks are still useless. Best case is they serve as sneeze guards and visual reinforcement.
N95 rated respirators are useful. And in short supply. Since healthcare workers desperately need them and most people don't, their use is currently weakly recommended.
Face shields plus respirators are good. I'm not sure about shields and surgical mask combo.
IMHO, Vox has been superior. Especially in comparison. They have explainers and podcasts dedicated to just coronavirus and COVID-19. Updated frequently. When the truth & reconciliation process starts, Vox is pretty far down the list of belligerents.
Edit: Surgical masks vs respirators. Any advice omitting the distinction is suboptimal.
Surgical masks are still useless. Best case is they serve as sneeze guards and visual reinforcement.
N95 rated respirators are useful. And in short supply. Since healthcare workers desperately need them and most people don't, their use is currently weakly recommended.
Face shields plus respirators are good. I'm not sure about shields and surgical mask combo.
IMHO, Vox has been superior. Especially in comparison. They have explainers and podcasts dedicated to just coronavirus and COVID-19. Updated frequently. When the truth & reconciliation process starts, Vox is pretty far down the list of belligerents.
> Surgical masks are still useless.
Not according to the research I've been reading: https://twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/1249698787666399235
Not according to the research I've been reading: https://twitter.com/jeremyphoward/status/1249698787666399235
I've reread the relevant CDC and Vox recommendations on masks. They both need to updated, to remove ambiguity, to be more strenuous.
Because worksmithing is hard, here's what I proposed to Vox's German Lopez:
"Wide spread mask usage greatly slows the spread of coronavirus.
The combination of masks, social distancing, wide spread testing, temperature screening, contact tracing, and quarantines works.
Everyone should wear masks to protect other people. If you are high risk, wear a N95 respirator to protect yourself. Because healthcare and first responders need more protection than you, please don’t use an N95 until we have a supply surplus.
To clarify the effective difference between respirators and masks: N95 rated respirators are form fitting with better filters, so all air goes thru the filter; while surgical and cloth masks still allow some unfiltered air, they do catch most exhaled airborne water droplets (moisture), effectively slowing the spread."
Thank you again for sharing your find.
Because worksmithing is hard, here's what I proposed to Vox's German Lopez:
"Wide spread mask usage greatly slows the spread of coronavirus.
The combination of masks, social distancing, wide spread testing, temperature screening, contact tracing, and quarantines works.
Everyone should wear masks to protect other people. If you are high risk, wear a N95 respirator to protect yourself. Because healthcare and first responders need more protection than you, please don’t use an N95 until we have a supply surplus.
To clarify the effective difference between respirators and masks: N95 rated respirators are form fitting with better filters, so all air goes thru the filter; while surgical and cloth masks still allow some unfiltered air, they do catch most exhaled airborne water droplets (moisture), effectively slowing the spread."
Thank you again for sharing your find.
Great find, thanks.
That review of the paper makes the distinction between protection and transmission. I admit I was only thinking about protection.
Since I'm immunocompromised, I will continue to wear N95 respirators whenever I'm around other people.
But per this paper, surgical masks are useful for "source control", at least partially thwarting infected people from spreading the virus. I'm super skeptical, because of old habits, but science is science.
So the rest of you should start wearing surgical (or cloth) masks. Thanks.
That review of the paper makes the distinction between protection and transmission. I admit I was only thinking about protection.
Since I'm immunocompromised, I will continue to wear N95 respirators whenever I'm around other people.
But per this paper, surgical masks are useful for "source control", at least partially thwarting infected people from spreading the virus. I'm super skeptical, because of old habits, but science is science.
So the rest of you should start wearing surgical (or cloth) masks. Thanks.
I think it depends on perspective. There is not evidence that surgical masks useful in preventing someone from contracting covid [0]. Which makes sense because droplets can still be inhaled because air flows around the mask (unlike n95 respirators).
Masks are very useful in preventing spread, thus useful for overall slowing the spread of the disease.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7118603/
Masks are very useful in preventing spread, thus useful for overall slowing the spread of the disease.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7118603/
>Surgical masks are still useless
Useless at what? Be specific, this constant anti-mask reinforcement is bizarre.
Useless at what? Be specific, this constant anti-mask reinforcement is bizarre.
> "Vox: advises citizens not to buy masks while Vox founder is buying masks"
Vox is not a monolith. Matty Y, the "founder" mentioned, tweeted in February that the CDC mask guidance didn't make sense, right around the time he purchased the masks.
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1233806758843383810?...
"I have never understood this message — are the masks ineffective or are they vital for health care workers? If it’s the latter shouldn’t we explicitly ration rather than trying to discourage purchases informally?" February 29, 2020.
he later wrote on March 30
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1245046686621327360?...
> I’m not sure how important the mask fiasco is, but the way public health officials did this is by (successfully!) manipulating media outlets that were trying to be responsible into amplifying misleading messages so I’m personally very angry about it.
So attacking Vox as a whole over this seems misleading. While they haven't been helpful on this issue, they were just repeating CDC and WHO guidance that dates back over 10 years - The CDC was telling people masks didn't work even during the 2009 swine flu pandemic. https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/23/face-masks-much-more-t...
Vox is not a monolith. Matty Y, the "founder" mentioned, tweeted in February that the CDC mask guidance didn't make sense, right around the time he purchased the masks.
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1233806758843383810?...
"I have never understood this message — are the masks ineffective or are they vital for health care workers? If it’s the latter shouldn’t we explicitly ration rather than trying to discourage purchases informally?" February 29, 2020.
he later wrote on March 30
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1245046686621327360?...
> I’m not sure how important the mask fiasco is, but the way public health officials did this is by (successfully!) manipulating media outlets that were trying to be responsible into amplifying misleading messages so I’m personally very angry about it.
So attacking Vox as a whole over this seems misleading. While they haven't been helpful on this issue, they were just repeating CDC and WHO guidance that dates back over 10 years - The CDC was telling people masks didn't work even during the 2009 swine flu pandemic. https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/23/face-masks-much-more-t...
It turns out that all those people who write software and run startups do know better than the so-called experts. In tech everyone sounded the alarm way before. The last day I wasn't SiP was the day Google announced Google Next cancellation. And then for the month that followed, all this crap about masks being worthless and now suddenly they aren't.
Turns out a valid epistemological basis becomes more valuable rather than less valuable in a crisis.
Turns out a valid epistemological basis becomes more valuable rather than less valuable in a crisis.
Maybe in this situation it's simply useful to understand what exponential growth means.
To see numbers go like 1, 2, 4, 8, 16... and react with "oh, this seems really bad" while everyone else is like "16 infected people among how many millions? that's nothing. flu kills more people".
To see numbers go like 1, 2, 4, 8, 16... and react with "oh, this seems really bad" while everyone else is like "16 infected people among how many millions? that's nothing. flu kills more people".
It's easy with hindsight to go through any news reporting on covid and point out the mistakes because the situation has been quickly evolving for the last few months. You're comparing what you know now to what was known at the time of each report. Most of the recommendations line up with what the CDC/FDA/WHO/US gov was saying at the time.
> You're comparing what you know now to what was known at the time of each report.
Not at all.
We are using what we know now to evaluate what tech people said vs what the media said - and the tech people were overwhelmingly right and the media overwhelmingly wrong.
Not at all.
We are using what we know now to evaluate what tech people said vs what the media said - and the tech people were overwhelmingly right and the media overwhelmingly wrong.
I read Vox and listen to Ezra Klein's podcast as well as The Weeds. They have been covering Covid-19 since before it had that name. They are a part of my regular media diet, and I consumed their coverage before the US had its first case. I knew this was seriously partially because of their coverage. I am baffled by this narrative that Vox is somehow specially to blame.
Ezra Klein has a list of early stories when someone else accused them of the same: https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/1241202132604162050
Ezra Klein has a list of early stories when someone else accused them of the same: https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/1241202132604162050
how about Techcrunch, Engadget and Gizmodo owner company? not visiting any of these sites since all of them first redirect you through some advertising tracking domain caught by my ublock, haven't seen any major site doing such shady thing, they would deserve it more
I tend to be conservative in my politics, but I hate to see this. If it had to be some liberal publisher, I'd rather that it not be Vox.
Vox seems to me to be about as left-leaning as you can get, but they do it quite fairly. Example: Vox was one of the first left-side publications to run articles about Joe Biden's accuser. A lot of other publications stayed away from this story-- some still are-- but Vox bravely ran it. (From a far-left position, of course. If you go far enough left, you'll end up close to far-right.) They are the real deal, and for that I respect them.
Vox seems to me to be about as left-leaning as you can get, but they do it quite fairly. Example: Vox was one of the first left-side publications to run articles about Joe Biden's accuser. A lot of other publications stayed away from this story-- some still are-- but Vox bravely ran it. (From a far-left position, of course. If you go far enough left, you'll end up close to far-right.) They are the real deal, and for that I respect them.
Serious question. Are you confounding left-leaning with lack of journalistic integrity, and conservative news outlets as having integrity?
No, not at all.
I consider most media sources biased (right or left) and also consider them to have various degrees of integrity.
For integrity, I give Vox good credit for running a story that deserves attention but runs counter to their political leanings.
I consider most media sources biased (right or left) and also consider them to have various degrees of integrity.
For integrity, I give Vox good credit for running a story that deserves attention but runs counter to their political leanings.
zarkov99(1)
vanattab(6)
didn't Vox got like $200 million from NBCUniversal? why not ask for another round of funding?
They did raise $200 million from NBCU in 2015. Now probably wouldn't be a great time to try to raise money given that their revenue streams (ads, events, etc.) are under extreme pressure.
Wasn't that like 5 years ago and several spun-up media sites later?
Because NBCUniversal is hemorrhaging money.
NY Mag Union statement on the cuts: https://twitter.com/NYMagUnion/status/1251218401688772608
Vox media union on the cuts: https://twitter.com/vox_union/status/1251174537120616454
> While we appreciate Vox Media talking to us in good faith, we don’t agree with the company’s decision to furlough employees — especially after hundreds of us told the company we were willing to take wider pay cuts to save all jobs.
> We won a guarantee of no layoffs, no additional furloughs, and no additional pay cuts through July 31, along with enhanced severance for any layoffs that occur in August-December. The company also agreed to reduce the number of furloughs.