Shop Paper #22: A Stronger Push for Fairness and Transparency
January 16, 2024
Greetings--
As we continue our journey in 2024, the Forbes Union stands more determined than ever in advocating for our rights and a better workplace.
On Tues., Jan. 16 the bargaining committee met with Forbes for five hours. Members in the tri-state region schlepped in through the snow to the offices of Forbes’ attorney, after he rejected our request to hold remote negotiations due to the weather.
Turns out, the trip was for naught. Forbes came to the bargaining table with no proposals or counters, but a heap of disdain for having to explain their previous rejections. In short, Forbes’ nonsense rejections fall into three categories:
a proposal is so obvious that it doesn’t need to be put in a contract
a proposal is so unacceptable that it shouldn’t be in a contract
a proposal relates to something that isn’t currently an issue, so it doesn’t need to be put in a contract
Of course, the proposals we put on the table are so standard that some form of them appear in NewsGuild contracts across the industry.
Here are the details.
Diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging: Newsroom staffers must be informed about any progress
Despite bargaining at length about this important area at our last session, more than six weeks ago, and being very close to reaching an agreement, Forbes did not come to the table with a counter offer to our latest proposal. The sticking point is Forbes’ insistence that it be able to withhold data and statistics about hiring and promotions from all members of the Forbes Union. Such needless secrecy, of course, would make it impossible for the diversity committee to share any progress in this area with our members. We refuse to keep our members in the dark about this important issue.
Rejections: Forbes waits 18 months to respond, then complains that part of a proposal might be outdated and accuses the union of wasting time
After sitting on five of the union’s proposals for around 18 months, Forbes flat-out rejected them in rapid-fire succession at our meeting on Nov. 17, 2023, without providing any reasons. While Forbes could have countered those proposals, by rejecting them outright management delayed any chance of a contract, putting the ball back in the Union’s court to either stick with the original rejected proposal, accept the rejection, or revise and resubmit the proposal and wait for Forbes to get around to responding to it. If Forbes was serious about working towards a contract, it would have taken the productive step of countering.
During our latest meeting, your Bargaining Committee pressed for explanations on management’s rejections. Forbes’ attorney, Patrick Collins, called such discussions “meta” and said they were a waste of time, a surprising take considering Forbes management showed up for bargaining with no proposals and no counters. But despite Collins’ continued histrionics, we did get some answers about why they rejected three of the proposals.
Remote work: Advocating for security about where your job is based
First up was our proposal on remote work. We believe that, in this situation, the status quo at Forbes–where a large percentage of employees are fully remote–is working and working well. So we crafted a proposal that largely reflects and enshrines what Forbes currently offers. You wouldn’t think this would be controversial.
Forbes balked at our request to provide six months notice to members if their positions were going to switch from remote to hybrid or onsite, a change that could be monumental for members who might need to uproot their families and move to Jersey City or look for new employment altogether. Forbes might have been able to placate those concerns a bit, but it also rejected our request for certainty that positions that are currently remote or hybrid will stay that way.
Forbes’ concerns around this proposal largely centered on their incorrect stance that much of the proposal was outdated and “a little pie in the sky,” according to Collins. It’s neither. (And if Forbes hadn’t waited 20 months to respond to our proposal, timeliness wouldn’t have been an issue at all.)
We also asked for a monthly stipend of up to $300 related to any remote work expenses. Forbes thought that wasn’t necessary and that the $50 per month it reimburses towards cell phones and home internet is sufficient. Management rejected an inclement weather policy, calling it “obvious” and saying it doesn’t need to be codified.
It’s obvious that their recalcitrance isn’t about substance – it’s about power. We’ll continue to fight for a workplace that works for us.
Temporary employees and interns: Securing their rights and path to employment, while not allowing Forbes to just increase its reliance on them
The union continues to champion the cause of inclusivity, including for interns, fellows, and temporary employees. We believe in equal rights and protections for all members of our workforce, regardless of their employment status. The company’s reluctance to include our valuable colleagues in the bargaining unit or give them a defined path to full-time employment is unacceptable
We also want to make sure Forbes doesn’t use temporary employees as an easy way to replace permanent ones. We’re proposing that Forbes can’t transfer an employee and then fill the vacated position with a temp for at least six months. Nor should it be able to just keep cycling temporary workers through a position.
The conversation was somewhat productive but ended without Forbes committing to provide a counter or just stick to their earlier rejection.
Some of us here at Forbes remember what it was like to be a temp with no protections and no clear path to employment. We want the best for the temps and interns we work with, and we’ll continue to fight for this language.
Editorial integrity: Reporters should be consulted when their published articles are changed
Our commitment to editorial integrity remains unwavering. We argued passionately for the establishment of concrete guidelines that uphold journalistic independence and protect our members from undue influence or censorship from advertisers. We see this as fundamental. Our dialogue with the company has been challenging, but we are dedicated to ensuring that these values are not just upheld but championed in our workplace.
The conversation here centered around when a reporter must be consulted before a change is made to their published work and when an issue might rise to the level that management needs to make a change ASAP. Forbes provided an example of when it felt this action was necessary, while the union detailed an instance where an edit made after publication and without consulting the reporter led to a mistake appearing in the article.
Forbes said it would counter this proposal. That’s great, although it remains upsetting that after two years, we are still negotiating about this essential issue.
Bargaining schedule: Forbes, again, refuses to schedule regular sessions
Forbes scoffed at the union’s request to set a bargaining schedule where we’d commit to regular meetings, held at the same time and day. Right now, bargaining sessions are scheduled on the fly, which involves a lot of coordination as 10 busy people try to find a time that works for all of them. The union wants to prioritize them; management does not.
If Forbes were committed to bargaining, establishing a regular meeting schedule would be the easiest step to take.
You: Your engagement makes the difference
We cannot emphasize enough the importance of your involvement and support as we work to improve Forbes. Each voice adds to the collective strength of our union. Your experiences, feedback, and participation are invaluable as we fight to get the newsroom we deserve.
Solidarity,
Your Bargaining Committee
Zach Everson
Alex Konrad
Andrea Murphy
Hank Tucker
