First there was the byline strike. Now it’s the video strike, according to a Hawaii Newspaper Guild member at the Honolulu Advertiser.
…the Newspaper Guild is undertaking a video strike against the Advertiser until May 19 (the next negotiation session).
Basically all newsroom staffers are exercising their right to refuse the optional task of shooting, editing or otherwise producing videos for use on Honoluluadvertiser.com. This task was taken on voluntarily by newsroom staffers as part of the advertiser’s ‘digital transformation,’ but given the complete lack of respect for that effort on the part of the company (as evidenced by their lousy contract offers and unwillingness to bargain seriously), the environment of cooperation is taking a turn for the worse.
Management has made a couple of interesting adjustments, including making videos themselves (e.g. the new Headlines video), asking for video from sources (I do not know if they are having reporters do this) and, most interestingly, making a deal with KGMB 9 to supply what amounts to scab video.
Needless to say, that’s not appreciated, although the Guild did not apparently do a media release regarding this action. Word is the video strike upset publisher Lee Webber greatly and he’s been trying to take his ‘message’ directly to the workers via direct email and, get this, an offer to have breakfast or lunch with all staffers personally, ostensibly to ‘sell’ the company’s crap offer. I don’t think many will be sympathetic, given the soaring workloads and dwindling staff levels. But I would bet more than a few will take him up on the offer and give him a piece of their minds.
Gannett has been emphasizing video and interactivity on its newspaper web sites throughout the chain.
Back in January, Advertiser editor Mark Platte wrote: “We owe our success in the field of video to the many reporters and photographers who have learned a new skill set and have made The Advertiser one of the top sites in our company when it comes to video streams.”
Platte’s column went on to laud Seth Jones, the Advertiser’s multimedia editor, who received a Gannett award last year for his role in pushing video production by photographers and reporters here in Hawaii. So I’m sure this video strike is getting attention within the company.
Our course, all this is playing out against the backdrop of continuing dismal news in the industry. Forbes reported last week on the latest circulation figures across the country, and most news is bad. Here’s another report (with comments) on Gannett’s papers, and another blog post (with comments) concerning Gannett’s Cincinnati Enquirer.
So what’s the future of newspapers? Perhaps Gannett Co., owner of what I think is still the largest newspaper chain in the country, was dropping a big hint when it cut the word “newspaper” from the name of its former Newspaper Division? It has been renamed “U.S. Community Publishing”.
U.S. Community Publishing includes Gannett’s daily community newspapers, more than 100 Web sites and hundreds of non-daily publications. The new name better reflects the division’s responsibilities, the company said.
What exactly is the situation with reporters blogging at the Advertiser? Do they get paid more? Are they forced to do it as part of their job? What exactly is the set up? It seems that Gannett is stressing all this non-news “content” but isn’t willing to pay even their own people who are providing it?
Seems they are saying “we’re changing our business model and need more and more web-site content but we don’t want to pay for it”.
Is blogging- or for that matter video production- being addressed in the collective bargaining?
What’s the other side of the story, I wonder? What are the ramifications to the company if the union gets what they are asking for? Are they being unreasonable or fair, given the conditions of the newspaper industry as a whole and our economic environment? If I were in the union, I’d be concerned they were going to negotiate me out of a job — unless these questions were addressed.
No union would negotiate a company out of business. Bad for them since it would mean they would have no members.
There is a mutual self-interest in keeping a business open. That’s why unions in the airline industry give concession after concession.
Sorry Lori and Charles but I don’t buy it. Unions that think that way have joined the other side.
There are only two reasons a business can’t pay it’s workers a living wage and good benefits- either they have a bad business plan or they are maximizing profits at the expense of their workers. Either way we’d be better off as a society if all those bad business people went out of business and let people who have a business plan- one that includes treating workers fairly- step into the void. The current collusion between union heads and management doesn’t serve the union workers and when it’s across the board then the fear of “no job” is real.
But if all the business people who have no business being in business were forced out of the picture by united workers who will not settle for less than a living wage, those “good” jobs would exist along with good business plans and smaller reasonable profits. If reasonable profits were all that were available (because workers will not settle for less) business people would be required to accept a lower reasonable profit margin if they were to do business at all.
But the collusion with management is a self-fulfilling diminution of the workers’ worth and as long as workers see their fate as tied to that of an individual badly managed company- one that seeks to make more profit by paying workers less- we won’t get to the root of why workers are being ripped in every negotiation with management.