The Guild is asking for 4% raises a year for three years, while the company is offering 2.25% for the first year of the contract, and 2% the next two years. “We deserve a contract that has job security protections and that respects seniority and the value of the employees who have given multiple decades of their lives to this company,” said Kaplan. “We deserve a buyout process that is fair and truly voluntary, and that is not deceptively a worse deal than the company claims it is. And most of all we just deserve to be dealt with fairly by our employer.”
“We respect the rights of our Guild-covered colleagues to engage in this planned one-day strike. We will make sure our readers and customers are as unaffected as possible,” a Post spokesperson said in a statement. “The Post’s goal remains the same as it has from the start of our negotiations: to reach an agreement with the Guild that meets the needs of our employees and the needs of our business.”
With hundreds of staffers pledging support for the walkout earlier this week, a second Post staffer said “it’s going to be noticeable,” but questioned “whether it’s going to be effective.” In some cases, entire departments, such as the Metro and investigative teams, committed to walking out, Post reporter Marissa Lang said, as did “colleagues on the commercial side, and in the print plant,” who walked off their jobs in the early hours of Thursday morning. “A walkout of 750 people touches every part of the Washington Post organization,” said Lang. Earlier this week, Post Guild released an open letter asking readers to “respect our walkout by not crossing the picket line,” meaning “do not engage with any Washington Post content.” If you did read the Post on Thursday, though, you may have noticed some stories—like one about a new crime center in DC to the paper’s own coverage of its labor protest —had a general byline: “By Washington Post Staff.” Either reporters had their names stripped off stories, or the generically bylined pieces were written by editors.
Staffers I spoke to had mixed feelings about how much this action will really do. “I think people are genuinely impressed by how this young contention of leaders has revived the union, and doubled its membership,” said a third Post staffer. But “a lot of the same people are disappointed to see that they’re acting out in this way that doesn’t seem to be connected to any real prospect of progress on pay of jobs.” I’m told that there was internal second-guessing on Thursday among reporters who’d agreed to walk out but were now wondering, among other things, what would come next. Some high-profile staffers signed onto the strike out of fear of being publicly called out if they didn’t participate, according to a Post staffer. A piece in Semafor did just that to two top New York Times reporters, Peter Baker and Michael Shear, last year when the two opted out of the Gray Lady union’s walkout—an article, the Post staffer said, that had been circulating in recent days.
Asked about the Guild’s plan following the strike, Lang said they would “extend another one-day invitation to the company to sit down with us and meaningfully bargain over the terms of our contract. If they refuse and continue to engage in some of the behavior we’ve seen, we’re prepared to continue to pressure them,” she said.
The Post Guild’s decision to walk off the job amid lagging contract negotiations comes nearly one year to the day that the Times’s unionized staffers rallied outside the newspaper’s headquarters in their own historic act of protest. Several months later, the Times’s bitter labor fight came to an end as the staff union and company agreed to a contract. In August, Axios reported that members of the Times union briefed staffers from the Post union as the Post considered a walkout of its own.
There are distinctions between the staff appeals at the two papers. Part of the Times union’s rallying call last year was tied to the company having increased compensation for some top officers and increased its dividend payout to shareholders. The Post’s walkout, on the other hand, comes as the company has admitted it’s been operating on faulty financial projections and is buying out—or, potentially, laying off—about 10% of its workforce. While one Post staffer acknowledged its New York–based rival is on firmer financial footing these days, they also pointed out the Times is “not owned by the second richest guy in the world.”
Charlotte Klein
Source link
