Shop Paper #12: Forbes: Fighting for your right not to take vacation

January 24, 2023

We met with Forbes on Tuesday, January 24th. This was our first session of 2023 and 12th overall. Again, Forbes showed up nearly empty-handed. To date, we’ve submitted 29 proposals, while Forbes management has only offered 8 counters. 

Despite what the company said at Tuesday’s town hall,, it’s clear that management is trying to slow-walk the bargaining process and stop us from getting the contract we deserve.

Let’s start with the Union’s counter on the access to content proposal. The union is looking to ensure that former employees have access to their work and are notified if Forbes plans to delete content/published material. The first part of the problem is taken care of by Forbes offering former employees a free subscription to Forbes.com for one year. Management objected to the section where they would be required to notify former employees before their content is deleted for the 12 months after leaving Forbes. There was a lot of back and forth about how deleting content has been handled in the past and whether notifying former employees puts too big a burden on Forbes. Even though this is a relatively innocuous subject, the company refused to agree to the Guild’s proposal standard-issue proposal at the session. 

Next up was the non-discrimination proposal. This is one of the proposals related to DEI  and has been discussed at length in other sessions. On Tuesday we spent a fair amount of time discussing the structure of the union and whether the contract can dictate how the union treats its members. It’s evident that the company was trying to dictate when and where the union can speak to its members – a violation of our legal rights. 

We then moved to the provision related to the immigration status of members. Our position is that Forbes should use the same criteria for similarly situated members and non members to decide whether to support or sponsor a member. Ali Intres shared information about the company’s current process and indicated that the company would be willing to consider revised language on this section. 

The last section discussed was gender neutral bathrooms. We want the language to reflect that a gender neutral bathroom will be available wherever Forbes is based. Yet again, the company was resistant.

While we’re nonetheless happy about the progress made on the non-discrimination proposal, let’s be clear what the company’s strategy is here. They’ve carved up our DEI proposal to give us something that is *just above* what the law requires. It’s unacceptable. Together with all of you, we will continue our fight for a transformational proposal.  

After a short break, we discussed Forbes’ counter on the vacation and time off proposal. Under current policy, employees receive a set number of time off days (vacation days, sick days, days of impact, summer Fridays). Management proposed the current system would remain in effect until December 31, 2023, when it would be replaced by the company’s new “flexible time off” policy. The FTO policy has no set days and “encourages” employees to take off a minimum of 20 days. A reminder that any changes to existing policies under status quo require the approval of the union, meaning the company cannot change the existing policy until we reach an agreement. 

Let’s be clear about the reason management wants to change the vacation policy: cost savings. Management doesn’t want to pay out unused vacation time when someone leaves the company, which they have to do under the current system where days are accrued and defined. 

Bargaining committee members reiterated many of the concerns we have heard from the unit. Many of our unit members already have difficulty taking time off and take care to plan around list and magazine closes, especially given issues with staffing. There is also significant variation by manager – some encourage vacation while others discourage taking time off. Many unit members are also frequently contacted about work issues while they are on vacation. 

How many times have you had to work on vacation and been told by your manager they would “make it up” to you but that promise is conveniently forgotten a few months later? 

The bargaining committee raised concerns that if unit members already have issues taking vacation under the current system where days are defined, that it would be much more difficult to negotiate these requests when the number of days are undefined. That’s why we kept asking management about how they would enforce that employees actually take the minimum number of days. 

Ali Intres said the company would not enforce or mandate that people take vacation, giving the example of an employee who “doesn’t” want to take all their vacation days. We are not worried about the employees who don’t want to take their vacation. We are worried about the employees who feel like they “can’t” take vacation, because of the workplace culture on their teams around taking time off or the lack of staffing that makes it almost impossible to find a “good” time to be off. 

Is it really a vacation if you come back and have to do your work for the week you return plus everything you missed the previous week because there was no one to cover for you? 

Ali also said that she only got 15 vacation days last year and planned to take “more than 20” this year and was “not going to feel guilty.” That’s great if Ali wants to model taking more than 20 days of vacation for her team and also plans to approve more than 20 days of vacation for the employees who directly report to her. But this also represents the inherent power dynamic with vacation in a flexible time off policy: you need to have a manager who is OK with you taking 20 days off, otherwise there is no backstop to say you are guaranteed to take that time. 

Management would further not commit to guaranteeing the annual company closure between Christmas and New Year. The company further proposed 11 holidays, while the union’s proposal had 15. 

It’s clear that we need to use our collective muscle  to force the company to take action – and we will. 

The Forbes union was represented by bargaining committee members Merrilee Barton, Alex Konrad, Jon Ponciano, Andrea Murphy and Katie Jennings, NewsGuild rep Anthony Napoli and lawyer Thomas Lamadrid. Forbes was represented by Chief HR Officer Ali Intres, Managing Editor Joyce Bautista Ferrari and outside counsel Patrick Collins. 

Have any questions about the proposals? Reach out to anyone on the bargaining committee. 

Want to get involved? We’re always looking for new stewards or BC members. Contact Unit Chair Andrea Murphy: andreadmurphy@gmail.com to learn more.

Our next session is scheduled for February 22 from 10AM to 1PM EST.

In solidarity, your bargaining committee:

Merrilee Barton

Alex Konrad

Katie Jennings

Andrea Murphy

Jon Ponciano