Shop Paper #20: We continue to fight for real DEIB, Forbes rejects five other union proposals
November 17, 2023
Hi Shop F,
Hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving holiday! Here's a summary of our most recent bargaining session before the break -- we're back at it tomorrow:
Our meeting with management on November 17, 2023 featured productive conversations on a number of topics for the first half of the session, though much of that was overshadowed by management’s actions at the end.
We started the day by presenting a counter to the DEIB proposal management shared with us at our last session on October 23. As we mentioned in our recap of that session, there was a lot to like about that proposal – because it included language we proposed over a year ago. It would establish a committee that would receive useful data annually from the company about the applicant pool that advances beyond the initial screening stage for jobs, propose initiatives to enhance recruitment and retention of underrepresented groups, and set aside funding for posting on job boards, attending conferences and other endeavors that could advance representation at Forbes.
In our response, we adjusted a few of the numbers involving funding, the size of the committee and how often the committee would receive the aggregate applicant data to better track progress, but felt we were very close to an agreement.
After a two-hour lunch break and caucus, Forbes’ bargaining team presented their own counter which agreed to our adjustments. But it added a crucial clause at the end of the proposal that any data or information the company provided to the committee would remain confidential and could not be disclosed to anybody outside the committee, even union members, without the approval of the company’s chief human resources officer.
Not only was this provision nowhere to be found in any of the company’s previous DEIB proposals—we specifically asked at our previous session whether the committee would be barred from sharing data with the wider unit, and Forbes’ lawyer Patrick Collins responded that confidentiality was not part of their proposal. Chief human resources officer Ali Intres added that the data shared would be in the aggregate and did not take issue with the concept of the data being shared with the unit at the time. When we reminded them of this exchange, Collins at first acted like he didn’t remember it, and later, after the NewsGuild’s lawyer Thomas Lamadrid read our notes from the session back to him, he resorted to childish insults, responding that he hoped Lamadrid was a better lawyer than a stenographer.
As the session continued, we continued to focus on the substance of the language, not bargaining theatrics.
Collins, Intres and managing editor Joyce Bautista Ferrari never explained why they changed their minds about confidentiality, instead falsely suggesting that the Forbes Union was only interested in using such information for reports. It’s clear that the Union’s pay equity study continues to rankle management. Collins and Intres reiterated that they believed the study to be flawed but again declined to provide specifics or produce a study of their own, interspersed with personal attacks on the integrity and intelligence of our members who worked diligently on the report.
But they’re missing the point. A collaborative DEIB committee can achieve much. But restricting transparency like this would hamstring the committee and keep the larger unit from receiving crucial updates, while also making it impossible to hold management accountable for its stated commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion.
This clause would give Ali Intres complete authority to cover up any data that indicates the company isn’t making progress in considering more job applicants from underrepresented groups, for example. We won’t agree to it, and will continue to fight for the transparency we deserve.
Before the lunch break, we also countered management’s proposals on information provided to the guild and coverage and jurisdiction, and reviewed Forbes’ revised flexible time off (FTO) proposal. For the information to the Guild proposal, the union needs to have an up to date roster of the unit to keep track of new hires and anyone who may have been promoted to positions out of the unit as well to stay organized and avoid confusion. Forbes offered to provide this list twice a year, but we requested it monthly—many other NewsGuild outlets received an automated list like this every month. We also requested to receive new hires’ offer letters to ensure they’re being treated fairly and stay apprised of any bonus plans Forbes is offering.
The most interesting conversation point on our coverage and jurisdiction proposal revolved around Forbes’ use of independent contractors. We don’t want Forbes to be able to replace departing unit members with contractors, and Forbes agreed that it would not use contractors to perform unit work in order to fire or lay off an employee, but our concern is that the language they proposed doesn’t keep them from relegating a staffer to part-time work and filling the gap with a contractor. We had a fruitful back and forth on this subject and hope to see progress on this issue – not regressive behavior.
Management then presented its response to our FTO counterproposal. They rejected our request to have unused vacation days out of a baseline of at least 20 for each employee paid out at the end of the year or upon an employee’s resignation. Their proposal encourages employees to take 20 days off a year, though it doesn’t have a mechanism in place to ensure employees are able to take these days. We also took some issues with their language threatening disciplinary action if they suspect a pattern of abuse of FTO. We have to come to an agreement by December 1 if we want to implement FTO for next year and will discuss it again at our next bargaining session on that date. Otherwise, we’ll continue with the status quo. We welcome feedback from the unit in the meantime on the pros and cons of these policies.
In the closing minutes of the six-hour session, in rapid fire, Forbes unilaterally rejected five union proposals. These proposals would:
Prohibit non-disclosure agreements.
Require Forbes to give employees advance notice if it changes the terms of remote work and calls us back to the office in the future.
Allow reporters to withhold their byline from work they aren’t comfortable with.
Apply the terms of the contract to temporary employees and stipulate a path to full-time or part-time employment.
Classify travel time to get to and from assignments as working time.
Management didn’t specify why they were rejecting these proposals but said with condescension that they didn’t think they were important to us because we haven’t talked about them recently. We strongly object to these rejections – what we have proposed is industry standard, not some kind of bargaining fantasy.
We’ll continue to press on these issues, no matter their response.
Editorial integrity is one issue management should be well aware is critical to our unit is editorial integrity. We’ve demanded a counterproposal, but they did not have it ready to present during the session. When we asked whether they would have a response ready for our next session on December 1, their answer was a noncommittal “maybe.”
Answers like this are insulting both to our committee, and to our members at large. We won’t take “maybe” as an answer.
Forbes spent much of the week leading up to the session pestering the union over email about which members of its committee would attend in person and demanding to know why one needed to attend remotely (Hank Tucker had previously scheduled plans to visit family in his hometown in North Carolina and participated remotely). They insisted they only agreed to a remote option for committee members who don’t live in the New York area and accused us of a “lack of seriousness about the hard work of bargaining” just because we asked for a Zoom link to be shared with one more person.
We are of course very serious about agreeing to a fair contract as quickly as possible and hope management shares this goal. We think their time would be best served in addressing the issues that matter to the unit rather than starting diversionary arguments designed to keep us from a good contract. If you're in the New York area, please make an effort to attend on December 1.
This fight belongs to all of us.
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
