But there was a Newspaper Guild chapter at Rhode Island's biggest daily, The Providence Journal, where my mother worked from 1960 to 1982 as an editor and reporter. I briefly walked a picket line when the guild led the newsroom in an early 1970s strike. I know this mostly because of a photo of me (left), walking the line when I was 15, with absurdly long hair, red suspenders, and looking skinny as a rail.I don't know why I was there except that my mother was active in the guild at least during that strike, and wanted to take my picture. I don't recall the strike ending well for anyone, which gets to the point of this post.
I haven't seen much recent progress by any labor group working on behalf of Gannett employees. Maybe labor has just gotten that bad, or Gannett has just gotten that good at driving them away. Whatever the cause, it seems clear that traditional employee organizing worked better when the newspaper industry moved slowly.
But that's over. Technology and speed now rule. That's why I cranked up Gannett Blog, after leaving USA Today last month. Blogging is another way to organize workers to meet safely, while informing each other as Gannett braces for a restructuring. My role is to be the host, encouraging a lively conversation. (Think of Perle Mesta -- with a mustache. Well, maybe not!)I wish there were more blogs about individual Gannett newspapers. We could link together into a very powerful network. But I understand that many of you are afraid, or simply too tired at the end of an ever-lengthening workday. But I keep hoping.
Use this link to e-mail feedback, tips, snarky letters, etc. See Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the sidebar, upper right. Or leave a note in the comments section, below.
[Image: my original USA Today employee ID badge and press card. It was made on my first day at work: May 1, 2000.]
I'll do my best to relay a story I heard from several old-timers when I worked for The Asbury Park Press.
ReplyDeleteThe APP has never had a unionized newsroom. The last time there was any kind of union drive was right at the time when Gannett was making its move to buy the paper, in 1997. The staff at the time, sensing that their paper would slowly be run into the ground by this evil machine, began to make moves to unionize so as to have more of a say in the new world order to come.
What happened next was fairly insidious, and played out in several departments, but mostly in advertising and circulation. Those people who were identified as having the biggest "gripes" with the company were given what they wanted to pacify them - small raises, new titles, etc. This was enough to defuse the union momentum enough that it never happened again at the APP.
Why is this important? The main point in the story is that Gannett made it known to the owners of the APP that they had no interest in purchasing a unionized newsroom. This makes sense if you look at some of the struggles the company has had within other newsrooms that had union representation.
In my time at the APP, even joking around about forming a union was something that had to be done in a whisper. There was a very real sense that any attempt to form a union would be met with swift reciprocity from the upper management, and no one wanted to bring that down on their heads. Working there was already misery enough.
Being a newspaper reporter and longtime union advocate and Guild member, and now somebody workign to help some people organize their newsrooms in the Bay Area (see onebigbang.org for all about that) I find it unspeakably sad that a company supposedly in the free speech business would intimidate or bribe its editorial workers and then be allowed get away with it.
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of newsroom is it where people dont speak above a whisper? Granted, you have to be smart, and nobody should stick his or her head up just for the sake of getting it shot off. But there's more to do than just tell stories about this kind of thing. I hope a blog like this develops into a real movement in Gannett.
I am employed by a different company now, but if anyone wants to stop this defeatist attitude wherever you are, and become part of a resurgence of the Guild at a time when we all need it more than ever before, I am happy to help and will put my contact details right here if that's allowed by your moderator: Carl Hall, SF Chronicle/Northern Calif Media Workers Guild, 415-421-6833, chall@mediaworkers.org. (Science Wrter, SF Chronicle, and former USA Today staff writer and Gannett management employee...)
Resurgence of the Guild. Tell us how you helped the Guild members in San Jose who lost their jobs. Other than collect their dues, how did you help all those folks that lost their jobs? Stop the jargon and tell us. How did you help them?
ReplyDeleteThis one recurring commenter keeps asking about how the Guild helped the San Jose members who lost their jobs.
ReplyDeleteIt's kind of an unfair question. Job losses are happening, and they totally suck, but they're the fault of the owners and managers (and the economy), not the Guild. How did the Guild help? Workers at Guild papers tend to make more when they're employed to begin with, so that's a help; not when they're out of jobs, for sure, but hey, they made more when they were employed. If there were crazy managers (or even good managers with bad days), the Guild probably helped a few of them not get unjustly fired first.
And when McClatchy put San Jose up for sale, the Guild brought in investors to try to buy the paper and 11 others. It didn't work, and I fear it didn't work not because the bid was too poor but because McClatchy didn't want to let an example be set of employees taking over papers and being the ones to benefit from the margins. But hey, we tried. And it was, and is, a damn good idea.
But no, the Guild couldn't save those jobs in San Jose. Or Philadelphia. Or Long Beach. Or Boston. Or New York. If that's your standard, if you want us to perform these miracles before you're willing to lend your support, well, keep waiting. I'm sure Guild-free papers at Gannett suffered no job losses, and everybody's working in great conditions there.
Why is it always "bad managers?" Are there never any bad "workers?" Were these "bad managers" stellar workers who turned sour the minute they got promoted?
ReplyDeleteAnd as for the Guild somehow always described in altruistic and Holy parameters, rubbish. I worked in newsrooms where the union did get the workers more $$, but they also got them protection for even the most inept workers, those whom never should have been there for 1 day let alone years and years. Even when the Guild-represented workers wanted the inept workers gone, the company's hands were tied by the same rules that protected the good workers. No, the Guild is not a be-all, end-all. It may protect in some cases, but I've seen many more cases in which the Guild added more to a bad situation than it did to affect a positive change.
A weak management may want to blame the Guild for the management's own failures, but it's silly to buy into that excuse. No union can protect an employee who fails to perform up to standard. Management has to do its job -- discipline and enforcement of standards is what that job's all about. And anyone whose job is on the line deserves a defense -- that's what the guild is all about. Arbitrators get to decide who's right based on the facts. Ive seen this work over and over for many years. As to the argument that unions protect the dead wood: Who killed the trees? Management's other job is to make sure to hire and inspire quality workers. And for the most part, give managers credit for doing a good job at that.
ReplyDelete