« The Nuclear Weapon (and more on replacement workers) | Main | More to Say... »
December 12, 2006
Tuesday's Grab Bag—and the Voice of the Voiceless
No word yet on what became of the mediator's scheduled 11 a.m. conversation with Philadelphia Media Holdings. In the meantime, the Inquirer's Joseph DiStefano summarized what's happening with all the "other" unions at the Inquirer and Daily News.
Also, we just received one of our all-time favorite things: an anonymous letter. This one is from someone with the moniker "The voice of the voiceless". We've edited for length and to remove the names of the people the writer mentions, but here it comes—the thoughts of a Guild member upset with his or her union.
Read it after the jump.
The newspaper guild is quibbling with Philadelphia Newspapers over a pension that means little to any employee at the Philadelphia Inquirer with fewer than 10 years of service—because these are the people who likely will be out of a job if the Guild gets its way. What will be the true cost to the Inquirer if layoffs are based primarily on seniority? Here are some random thoughts from someone speaking up for those whose voice has been silenced in this process—the people most vulnerable to being laid off.
The staff is bloated from years of hiring people to offset the lack of productivity by many longtime staff members: reporters who write a significant story every few months; photographers whose daily shift includes one assignment. Many people in this situation are the longtime staffers whose jobs will be saved by seniority, and those being laid off will be the newer staffers who have been much more productive.
Publisher Brian Tierney has spoken of the importance of diversity to the Inquirer. If seniority determines who is laid off, how many minority reporters, editors and photographers will get to keep their jobs? The answer is very few. How many minority journalists was the Inquirer hiring 25 years ago? In effect seniority protects the white establishment.
The company talks about the need to cut costs. What about the people who have moved from high-paying management jobs to lower-level jobs but kept their salary?
The lack of productivity among longtime staffers and their unwillingness to work during the holiday season has resulted in at least two former staffers who took a buyout last year being hired on a contract basis to work on the city desk and the national/foreign desk, respectively.
The Guild likes to trumpet solidarity, and how there were just four dissenters when a strike vote was taken in November. But it was a voice vote with members given 24 hours notice. And it was held at a downtown Philadelphia church at 6 p.m. on a weekday—the height of deadline and traffic congestion.
Perhaps this information will give pause to those who will decide the course of innocent peoples’ lives.
Sincerely,
The voice of the voiceless at the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Posted by steve at December 12, 2006 11:59 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4004
Comments
If it was so inconvenient to get to this meeting, why did 800 people show up? Even if every Guild member who didn't make it had voted no, it would still be an overwhelming vote to strike.
I wasn't involved in picking the meeting location, but it seems pretty obvious that they'd pick a hall that's large enough to hold the whole membership and close to where most members work. Can you name a better place?
Why 6 p.m. on a weekday? Well, most members work normal business hours. Holding it then meant most people could show up right after work. Those working nights could, in most cases, walk over to the synagogue on their dinner breaks. If the meeting were held on, say, a Sunday afternoon, most members would have to go out of their way to show up.
As far as seniority goes, there are legitimate criticisms. But if you don't like that system, why didn't you run for union office? You are not voiceless; you just chose not to use that voice back when it would have changed union strategy.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 12, 2006 01:37 PM
The union is supposed to represent all dues-paying members whether they run for office or not. Those vulerable to layoffs, who may be asked to go on strike to protect the pensions of longer-tenured employees, have a right to want more answers about whether their concerns are being represented in the negotiations. (from a different person)
Posted by: ananymous at December 12, 2006 02:00 PM
Unions, for good or ill, are direct democracies. No "legislators" to mediate our worst impulses. So the negotiators have to come up with a contract that half the guild will support - and remember that some 60 percent of the union are NOT newsroom employees, and they face no threat of layoffs. They get to vote too.
And if anyone at the Inquirer thinks the staff is currently "bloated" I have a PR job in Washington to offer them.....
Posted by: Anonymous at December 12, 2006 04:39 PM
this is exactly what the company wants -- divide and conquer.
Posted by: anonymous at December 12, 2006 05:45 PM
I think the union is doing a good job of dividing the reporters on its own. They've put pension importance over everything else, and now they've approved this list of saved reporters. If they didn't want to split the newsroom, that wasn't the way to go.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 13, 2006 02:17 PM