Pros
-Great brand to add to your resume
Cons
-The Times does not practice what they preach. The Times reports on inequalities at other companies for their terrible labor practices without reflecting on their own; The Times uses retaliatory practices themselves. If a Times employee mentions anything to HR, instead of fixing the problem an employee complained about, the employee will suddenly become the problem. You expect this elsewhere, but not at a company like The Times. They push out anyone who speaks up. As a result, everyone principled is pushed out or leaves on their own accord. -The Times has people in “leadership” positions who are not leaders. Further, these "leaders" force their teams to do all of the work, and then the "leaders" take credit for the work. This allows the unskilled "leaders" to do nothing and get ahead, while everyone below them works long and hard to get absolutely nowhere and receives zero credit for their labor and long nights. Meanwhile, the people below them toil with zero job promotions or raises and are told to "wait for their time." Spoiler alert: Their time never comes and they end up leaving for a better title and more pay. Think they should go to HR to report this problem? See above. -There are people working at The Times, mostly in "leadership," who are overtly racist and never held accountable for their racist remarks. When one of my team members, who is a person of color, suggested a place for lunch, I was all in. My white boss cut in, "We're not going there! It's so ghetto!" I was also forced to remove images in presentations because the people looked "too urban." WTF is that? You'd think, why not go to HR? See my first point. I worked on a team with 6 POC. By the time I left, there was only one remaining. Why do you think The Times doesn't release their retention numbers? -Whenever any instances or issues arise and become public, "leadership" sends out some empty apology that defends their questionable editorial decisions and The Times's ability to publish opposing opinions. During the Q&A, instead of listening and working towards a resolution, "leadership" instead is defensive and seems insulted to even have to address the employees' concerns. Why even bother having a Q&A if you're not going to listen? Of course, they almost always backpedal and eventually fired anyone involved in scandals that make it to the public, but they’ve already lost everyone's trust in the company by then. The Times, and especially The Times's HR department and "leadership," doesn't care about their employees, they only care about public perception and how it affects the price of their beloved company shares. (ICYMI: The Times is a publicly traded company.) -This is by far the worst place I've ever worked, and it's more disheartening from an institution that says one motto and lives by another. If you don't believe me, look at the public records and see how many lawsuits are against The New York Times Co for instances of racism, discrimination, and more. They know about these problems and do absolutely nothing but deliver empty promises and vilify anyone who speaks up. As a result, only the most contemptuous and self-servicing people work there now. Those who are still there and are morally good are either nearing retirement or using the brand as a resume builder and waiting for their next opportunity to end so they can leave. I’m sure they’ll find a better place to work in their next gig, which won’t be much of a challenge.