“Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.”
It’s an old newspaper adage that journalists love to throw around. Well, today’s DQ is the epitome of what that adage is about. It’s newspaper company versus newspaper people and it’s gotten quite ugly. Welcome to the end of the journalistic world as we know it, and for the record, I feel just fine.
So, the New York Times Company has threatened to shut down the Boston Globe before and, therefore, it wasn’t a huge shock when they said that they hadn’t ruled out shutting it down. But, now it looks like they’re just going to try to sell it. The largest union at the Globe had a chance to take a much smaller pay cut in order to prevent “Newspaperpocalypse: Boston”, but they decided against it and are faced with a mandatory pay cut that dwarfs the previous one they rejected. I’m sure they feel a bit silly now, but what are ya gonna do? At least this is choice fodder for one of every journalist’s favorite activities: talking about how much better stuff was back in the day.
On April 2 of this year the NYTCo. theatened to shut down the Globe, giving them 30 days to agree to $20 million in concessions or else. This happened just days after the Globe cut the equivalent of 50 full-time positions from the newsroom.
In late April the Times Co. decided they didn’t want to negotiate in public.
At the beginning of May the unions asked for and received an extension. Then, the NYTCo. eased up a bit after several unions agreed to pay cuts.
P. Steven Ainsley, The Globe’s publisher, said that he thought there could be a future for the paper, but that it would most likely involve more belt tightening.
So, the largest union at The Globe set a vote for June 8 to vote on the newest package of concessions floated by NYTCo.
Tom Friedman really cheesed some folks at the Globe off for bragging about his privileged existence at the Grey Lady in an article that appeared in the New Yorker. The offending passages reads:
Thomas Friedman, the Times’ chief foreign affairs columnist, lauded the efforts that Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., has made to keep the newsroom intact, saying, “I just have a great deal of admiration for him.” He told me that since taking his current post, in 1995, he has never been asked by Sulzberger what he was planning to write, or how high his travel expenses would be. “To be able to say what I want to say and go where I want to go—other than a Sulzberger-owned newspaper, you tell me where that exists today.” link
The Globe’s Brian Mooney fired back with a letter that included this choice couple of phrases: “The New York Times Co. wants you to slit your own throats and take money out of your pockets so Tom Friedman (and others in New York) can travel in style and at great expense — and then brag about it. The Times (not the Globe) lost $74.5 million last quarter and will lose a bundle in this quarter. Stand up and tell the Times the contract they’re trying to shove down your throats is an outrage. Vote No on June 8.” link
On the day of the vote, the union rejected an offer from The New York Times Company that would have resulted in a 8 percent cut in pay along with several other concessions in benefits and such. Some probably rejected the offer thinking that the NYTCo’s threat to impose a 23 percent wage cut if the offer was rejected was an empty one. Well, they were wrong. At least the cut means that NYTCo’s not threatening to shut them down anymore, right? Right guys?
Yesterday the largest union at the Globe filed a complaint with federal regulators, arguing that the New York Times’ decision to unilaterally impose a 23 percent pay cut on the union was a violation because the union claims that they have not reached an impasse in negotiations. New York Times Co. chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. said that he had no choice.
So, what do you think? Should they have swallowed the initial package? Also, what do you think of the New York Times and the Boston Globe covering their own spat and potential demise? Is it ethical?
***Update***
That’s what I get for trying to post early today.
Some folks at the Boston Globe got together to write Sulzberger a letter. In it they call him a mensch and go on and on about how they knew he wants to do “the right thing” and that he can’t possibly want to cut their pay by that much. Somebody’s mother is just kvelling over how well her lessons in guilt are working out.
Jack Welch tweeted that the New York Times Company is acting like a big ole’ hypocrite. “So ironic to see NYT act so brutish toward labor. Certainly would be crucifying any Company with labor practices like theirs.” He then clarified his statement, saying, “My New York Times labor tweet a few min ago refers to their BRUTISH dark age labor relations with their Boston Globe employees”
Oh, and a cartoonist at the Globe posted a cartoon that has 23 percent missing.
Great Blog. They really hate it when they get their own medicine. Sorta hypocritical if you ask me.