Shop Paper #13: Management rejects union security and mocks employees’ long work weeks
February 22, 2023
Hey Shop F,
We had our latest bargaining session with management on Wednesday, February 22—the 13th overall since we started last March. We discussed several working proposals, bolded for reference below, and we have four new dates scheduled (listed at the end).
The three-hour session kicked off with a discussion around our union security proposal, which would enshrine our right to organize, designate Forbes a union shop (wherein we maintain our strength as a union by having all eligible employees be Guild members, as permitted by law) and establish a procedure for how union dues are deducted from paychecks. In its counter, management rejected the notion that we should be able to speak truthfully and candidly about our treatment by supervisors on social media, and it also rejected the provisions that would designate Forbes a union shop and establish the dues payment procedure, known as checkoff.
These are standard provisions at NYGuild shops like the New York Times and Sports Illustrated, yet management, as represented by Ali Intres and Joyce Bautista Ferrari, claims the union shop provision is "coercive" and that the annual dues of 1.75% (which wouldn’t kick in until after we have secured a contract) are “concerning.” In addition to being standard across union shops, these provisions unequivocally give us the strength to win big on issues—economic and otherwise—that matter most to so many, and that’s why management is dragging its feet here—not because it cares about our concerns. Though it laments the costs of dues, management has not given a single penny in salary increases to nearly 20% of unit members who’ve been with Forbes since we unionized. Fellow NYGuild shops routinely win annual raises that well exceed the 1.75% dues, and in many cases, are tied to inflation. These wins—and much more—will be made possible with a strong union. We are clearly out of sync with management on the issue of union security, but it is well worth the fight.
Next, we shifted to the non-discrimination proposal. Management continues to insist it will not support or make decisions concerning bargaining unit employees’ visa applications based on the same criteria applied for similarly situated employees outside the bargaining unit. On this crucial issue, management is rejecting the opportunity for transparency, instead saying: “We're not going to get into how we make a visa sponsorship determination and what we're looking at for employees who are not represented by the union.” We continue to believe management should make a fair commitment to support members in need of visas.
Management then presented its counter proposal for coverage and jurisdiction. In this, we outline who is eligible for union representation and seek to eliminate Forbes’ use of contract work to replace the work of salaried employees—often at the detriment of contract workers who receive no benefits and little clarity around how long they will remain on contract. Management rejected language that would include interns and fellows in the unit, along with language barring the company from reassigning unit-member work duties to supervisors, managers or other non-Bargaining Unit employees. Management also said Forbes does not use independent contractors to avoid hiring replacements for departed unit members—a claim many of us in the newsroom know to be false; Forbes routinely hires independent contractors—without benefits—to do our work, while claiming it is looking for a replacement. This often goes on for months, or indefinitely. This, again, is an issue we will fight for.
Lastly, Forbes presented two of its own proposals, concerning management rights. In these, management is looking to strip us of the ability to negotiate raises for all members and is instead seeking to continue its established policy of granting salary increases using its own discretion. Once again, management is seeking to sacrifice transparency to serve its own agenda—one which has led to disproportionately low pay and smaller raises for women, who make up nearly two-thirds of our bargaining unit who have not received raises since we unionized. This is disappointing and unacceptable. We have successfully negotiated raises for several members in the more than 15 months since Forbes stopped illegally keeping us out of pay negotiations, and this is a right we clearly can not give back.
Unfortunately, the meeting ended on a disappointing note. When we asked when we would get a counter on our hours and overtime proposal (which seeks to establish a system for overtime pay), management said it would not agree to provide unit members comp time for extra time spent working because comp time is supposedly included in the flexible time off policy that the vast majority of us do not want. Bargaining committee members then discussed our overwhelming collective desire for overtime pay and mentioned the arduous magazine closes that routinely require some members to work 60+ hour weeks. To this, management mockingly responded, "These are salaried employees working in a terrible sweatshop apparently.”
At this point, it was clear management did not want to take the issue of overtime seriously, so we ended the meeting. That said, we will continue to push on this language that is (yet again) common in many NYGuild units because we know the issue is of utmost importance to many in our unit.
Follow the progress along at our upcoming bargaining sessions. Your attendance is crucial to push this forward!
Tuesday, March 7: 10 a.m. - 1 p.m. ET
Thursday, March 23: 10 a.m. - 1 p.m. ET
Friday, April 14: 10 a.m. - 1 p.m. ET
Tuesday, April 25: 10 a.m. - 1 p.m. ET
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.
In solidarity, your bargaining committee,
Merrilee Barton
Alex Konrad
Katie Jennings
Andrea Murphy
Jon Ponciano
