Introduction
In what has become the latest intersection of technology and labour, the CEO of AI search company Perplexity, Aravind Srinivas, has offered assistance to the New York Times during a strike by its tech workers. The dispute, which centres mainly around fair wages and office return policies, saw Perplexity offering its services – a gesture some saw as supportive. In contrast, others viewed it as undermining the workers’ cause. The timing couldn’t be more crucial, falling right before the U.S. presidential elections, when uninterrupted news coverage is critical.
NYT Tech Workers on Strike
The Tech Guild of the New York Times officially began striking on November 4, 2024, after months of negotiations failed to secure their desired 2.5% annual wage increase and conditions around in-office work policies. Critical tech support personnel walked off the job, bringing business operations, including essential data analysis, to a standstill.
Sulzberger’s Concerns on Election Day Coverage
AG Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times, responded critically to the strike’s timing, particularly given the proximity to the upcoming U.S. presidential election. Sulzberger lamented that millions rely on the Times’ journalism, particularly in such a pivotal moment for the country, underscoring the potential impact of losing this tech support.
Perplexity Steps In
In a now-controversial move, Perplexity’s CEO, Aravind Srinivas, offered to support the Times during this period. Responding publicly on X (formerly Twitter), Srinivas proposed that Perplexity could help ensure that election coverage remained uninterrupted by providing technological infrastructure. While his offer seemed intended to mitigate the technical setbacks caused by the strike, it also sparked a heated debate.
Industry Backlash
Srinivas’ offer quickly drew sharp criticism. Many users on social media saw his actions as an attempt to “scab,” a term describing those who undermine or replace striking workers. From the public’s perspective, the offer threatened to weaken the collective bargaining power of the NYT’s tech workers, especially when solidarity is vital during labour disputes.
Clarifications from Perplexity
Responding to these criticisms, Srinivas later clarified that his intention was not to replace journalists or technical staff but to provide additional technical infrastructure on a day of likely high traffic. However, the striking tech workers at the Times perform precisely this type of work, leaving many questioning whether the AI company’s involvement would genuinely be neutral.
A History of Tensions
It is worth noting that this is not Perplexity’s first run-in with the New York Times. Prior tensions were already simmering after the Times sent a cease-and-desist letter to the AI company in October for scraping its articles to train its AI systems. This history made Srinivas’ recent offer even more provocative and likely contributed to a more profound scepticism from many.
This situation spotlights the growing complexity as AI intersects with traditional labor markets. While technology can provide solutions, companies’ engagement during labour disputes can have far-reaching implications for worker rights and public perception of how AI will fit into future business practices.
Resource
Perplexity CEO offers AI company’s services to replace striking NYT staff
