Shop Paper #19: Light at the end of the tunnel for DEIB but management stonewalls on Editorial Integrity
October 26, 2023
Hi Shop F,
Our meeting with management on October 23, 2023 saw genuine progress – and shameful company behavior and delays.
Ahead of Monday’s meeting, we asked Forbes for a counter to our editorial integrity proposal – first put on the table back in March 2022. We felt that with the reply-all around the U30 Summit speaker concerns in August, repeated demands to implement the proposal, attention around the sale and its very clear conflicts for the newsroom – including the highly alarming Washington Post article on Friday – this issue would be front of mind for management. But that wasn’t the case.
Forbes didn’t show up with a counter and then accused the union of not taking the issue of editorial integrity seriously while saying glibly that they imagined they’d have a response at some point. They made no commitment to having a response at the next session, and dismissed our concerns about the Post article. Forbes’ lawyer seemed surprised and confused as to how it related to editorial integrity. Managing editor Joyce Bautista Ferrari and Chief Human Resource Officer Ali Intres had nothing to say on the topic, which is usually the case for the sole reps management sends to bargaining.
Members of our committee brought up other examples of where the business has reached into the newsroom, most recently with the U30 covers. We explained that right now there are no guidelines; no system for how to handle conflicts of interest. Issues are handled on an ad hoc basis with no transparency. Forbes appeared more interested in attempting to swat down any individual instances of concern than acknowledge a wider issue. Ali and Joyce couldn’t answer if there was an internal code of conduct or set of best practices for editorial integrity. And Joyce even suggested that Forbes putting Summit VIPs on the cover of the magazine was justifiable by merit, so what’s the big deal about it being part of a deal?
Management isn’t willing to take a stand for journalistic ethics. It’s unconcerned that we already have sources telling our reporters that they won’t leak sensitive information to Forbes because of potential Russian ownership influence. And it isn’t bothering to set the record straight if the Post article is incorrect.
This behavior is beyond disappointing – it undermines all of our work in the unit. We can’t let it stand.
We did receive a counter on the company’s DEIB proposal. This proposal puts forward a mechanism for a joint management and union committee to address DEIB issues in the newsroom. This is very similar to what the union put forward back in March 2022. The committee would address issues of outreach, recruitment, and retention of underrepresented groups and propose at least 2 initiatives a year. The company would provide the committee with annual data about the applicant pool that advances beyond the initial screening stage and a financial commitment to attending DEIB conferences and funding initiatives. We will put forward some revisions that strengthen the proposal, but this felt like progress to everyone in the room.
Remember, this is an issue that we’ve been organizing around and fighting for over a year. This progress is because of you.
We also discussed FTO. The big takeaway is that we proposed the FTO policy have a minimum number of days that need to be taken annually and unused days would be paid out at the end of the calendar year. We’ve all seen the studies that show people actually take less time off with what the company has proposed – “unlimited” FTO. Forbes says their FTO policy encourages us to take at least 20 days off and that there’s no mechanism to make people take time off. We got into the weeds a bit about whether Forbes could even calculate an appropriate pay-out figure (They do when they need to!) and that led to a discussion about tracking hours. All unnecessary. Even Lattice, the system Forbes’ HR uses, says that a minimum number of FTO is recommended. Ali and Joyce were seemingly surprised to learn this.
Towards the end of the session we went over a number of counters from Forbes. Typically these proposals aren’t contentious with other publications and are standard parts of NewGuild contracts. Up first was information to the guild. This proposal simply requires Forbes to share information about who is and isn’t a member on a regular basis. Forbes would like to do this twice a year – a nearly useless rhythm – while we are looking for the information more frequently. Forbes seems to think that providing this is a hardship even though they provide it to the union now on request.
Union Security was next. This concerns union dues, how they are paid and a contractual commitment for a union shop. Standard practice is that NewsGuild shops are union shops and dues are deducted out of an employee’s paycheck by the employer and submitted to the union on a regular schedule. Forbes is reluctant to agree to this – again, a standard at all our media peers.
Forbes also had a counter – if you could call it that – on the partnership committee proposal. This puts forward a joint management and union committee that would address issues that come up while the contract is in force. For example, how to address AI in the newsroom, or bringing in a new CMS system. The idea is that the newsroom can get in front of those types of issues and head off problems in a collaborative way. Management didn’t seem to understand the point of the committee – even though partnership committees are not only standard in the media industry, but in unions at large.
Despite giving us very little in that area, management then tried to propose their management rights proposal, which could potentially give the company expansive powers.
Lastly, we touched on coverage & jurisdiction. This proposal outlines who is a member of the union and who can perform bargaining unit work. Forbes management, unsurprisingly, did not want to limit its own ability to pass off unit work to non-unit members such as contractors or temps, or commit to hire new unit members to conduct such work in the event of a departure. We obviously consider that language essential to protect our roles.
Throughout the session, Forbes management attempted to talk down to our committee, through shouting, insulting individual bargaining members, and near constant interruptions.
Despite management’s stonewalling, it’s important to remember that we saw genuine progress on one of the issues we care most about.
When we fight, we win.
Have any questions about the proposals or anything related to bargaining? 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.
–Your Bargaining Committee
Zach Everson
Alex Konrad
Andrea Murphy
Hank Tucker
