Shop Paper #23: Walkouts Work
March 11, 2024
Hello!
The union had its 23rd bargaining session with management on March 11. We came in strong by introducing a powerful new member of our team. Emily Baker-White has joined the bargaining committee and this was the first session she attended. A great addition to the BC!
Starting with the good news. For the first time in a very long time, management gave us two real counters that we can actually work with. Not only that, Forbes actually asked us real questions that demonstrated a depth of knowledge of our proposals, instead of their usual practice of coming in fully unprepared to do anything but demean staff. You could feel the – shall we say it? – whiff of progress in the room.
Remote Work: Forbes gave us a counter proposal. This alone demonstrates that our walkout in January worked. Remote work has been and continues to be a key issue for our union and was a big part of why close to 80% of the newsroom participated in the walkout. Roughly half of our members live outside the tri-state area of NY/NJ/CT. Any changes to our current remote work policy would be beyond disruptive to the entire newsroom. Members will remember that the company completely rejected our remote work proposal in November 2023 and that there was a useless and awful conversation about the issue at the session on January 16.
The company’s counter proposal enshrines the current status quo, that employees are able to work remotely. There are a few exceptions that exist for members who have on-camera roles, etc. It also keeps the 120-day notice period from our original proposal if management determines there is a need to change a member’s status from remote employee to an in-person employee. The company prefers that those days be calendar days, however, rather than business days, which shortens the notification period somewhat. There are currently a handful of unit members who are required to be in the office to perform their work.
These are real protections for remote workers. And most importantly, this a remarkable about face from Forbes – almost certainly a result of our walkout.
Artificial Intelligence: We put our AI proposal on the table and, shockingly, had a productive conversation with management. We strongly believe that AI cannot replace the work of bargaining unit members – our work is simply too valuable. But we also recognize some of the value of AI, and don’t want to stop members from using it as a tool. Both sides generally agreed about where the line is with AI when it comes to articles and lists but there were questions about how AI tools are being used on the Art and Video teams. At times, Forbes’ questions were disturbing –the company did seem to imply that they were open to replacing some of our art team’s great work with fully-generated AI art.
Has anyone seen AI-generated art lately? We won’t stand for trash.
Still, we’re looking forward to seeing what Forbes comes back with. The bargaining committee is currently having conversations with members on the art and video teams to better understand how AI impacts their work.
Access to Content: A smaller proposal that would give employees that leave Forbes or are laid off access to Forbes.com for one year.Our proposal would allow former members to have access to their work for free. The Forbes counter offered a free one-year subscription, but did remove the provision that former employees would be notified for up to one year after leaving Forbes if any of their work was removed from the website. Chief Human Resources Officer Ali Intres said that this would be onerous for Forbes. While we don’t think a singular email notification is exactly “onerous,” we countered that the company could inform the union instead. Looks like we are very close to an agreement here.
While this is a smaller proposal, it’s a significant improvement from where we were before – again, a sign that our walkout made a difference.
Now onto the proposals where the company held onto their old and terrible positions.
Forbes did have a partial response to our Hours & Overtime proposal. They gave us a counter for the scheduling of the breaking news team. There are some issues that need to be addressed such as the minimum number of hours between shifts (right now, you could be asked to end your day at midnight and start again at 8 am. Absurd). But the problem here is that the company didn’t respond to any of the other parts of our proposal. There was nothing about defining the work week for the newsroom or the magazine close.
Ali and managing editor Joyce Bautista Ferrari wouldn’t even commit to the language currently in the handbook (“The normal workweek for Forbes regular, salaried employees is 40 hours-8 hours a day, including an hour for lunch. Work schedules vary, depending on the requirements of each department.) Their emphasis was on the idea that schedules vary, which the bargaining committee members understand. But there’s a big difference between working a few long days to get a story or list out and regularly working more than 40 hours a week. That not a case of schedules will vary but of expecting exempt employees to work extra hours without pay or comp time.
Work continues on the DEIB committee proposal. And unfortunately this last session didn’t get us any closer. It seems clear from our discussion with management that Forbes isn’t interested in creating a committee that will be held accountable for making progress around DEIB. The sticking point is that the company wants committee members to be barred from sharing any information or data that management gives to the committee, essentially gagging members from sharing anything with the wider unit. This would include high level updates on progress or the status of possible recommendations/initiatives. The union understands that some data will need to be kept confidential–personnel files, salary information, etc. However, what the union wanted is for this committee to be both transparent and accountable. Neither is possible if members can’t discuss any of the committee’s work.
Management is concerned that data would be published in some way that lacks context (their context) and has said, before the committee has been formed, that the committee won’t issue any reports.It’s clear from the discussion that Forbes has a specific idea of what this committee can and can’t do and that it’s not interested in a committee that can do real work.
The walkout demonstrated how seriously this unit takes the fight for our first contract. The tone at the table and the counter on remote work showed us that management was paying attention, even if they pretended it didn’t happen when we all returned to work.
When we fight together, we win together
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
Emily Baker-White
Zach Everson
Alex Konrad
Andrea Murphy
Hank Tucker
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
Shop Paper #21: Why is Forbes so afraid of editorial integrity?
It all begins with an idea.
December 1, 2023
Greetings--
Happy holidays if you're celebrating one this time of year. Here's a summary of out latest bargaining sessions with management.
When we sat down at the bargaining table in 2021, the first proposal we put on the table was editorial integrity. It’s one of the issues that matters most to the unit, and the ethical bedrock of all the work we do.
Yet despite the issue’s importance, it took over a year and a half before management was ready to discuss editorial integrity. Forbes vice president and editorial counsel Jessica Bohrer joined part of our latest negotiations at the NewsGuild of New York’s offices on Dec. 1, 2023. The all-day session was probably one of the most productive ones we’ve had (as well as the one with the least amount of yelling from Forbes’ attorney Patrick Collins). But despite verbally agreeing on many areas of common ground on editorial integrity, Forbes management refused to codify what it claims are shared values in a tentative agreement.
What are they so afraid of?
Editorial integrity
Twenty months after the union presented management with our proposal on editorial integrity, one of our members’ top priorities, Forbes returned a counter-proposal. Management struck much of what the union proposed, including specific standards, a requirement that management obtain the prior consent of the reporter before issuing a retraction, writers’ right to remove their bylines, better differentiation between editorial and branded content, the need to notify the guild of new material investors in the company within 10 days, and the creation of an editorial-standards committee, comprised equally of management and union representatives, that would make binding recommendations to ensure editorial integrity.
In the subsequent discussion, both sides agreed that editorial content should be free of influence from third parties. Bohrer stated that management fundamentally agrees with these concepts in the union’s proposal but didn’t think that such guidelines belong in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Management also claimed that its vague editorial standards are sufficient, as are its disclosures about sponsored content, as long as they meet what’s legally required. It’s a weak and unacceptable stance given chief content officer Randall Lane’s previous remarks that he wished our union contract would go beyond the bare minimum seen at other publications.
The union is fighting for clear, enforceable guidelines and accountability in the CBA to protect editorial decisions from external interference. Our focus is on ensuring transparency and upholding journalistic integrity, but Forbes’ reluctance to include specific standards in the agreement, even ones that are implemented in most other newsrooms, is a significant problem. We believe firmly in the necessity of solid, documented policies to improve and maintain the independence and credibility of our newsroom. We also believe an editorial committee and clearer processes to editorial integrity concerns will empower both unit members and their managers to produce high-quality, high-integrity work.
Flexible time off
In the previous bargaining session on Nov. 17, management told the union that there was a Dec. 1 deadline for us to agree on a flexible time-off policy if it was to be implemented for 2024. The bargaining committee consulted with you, our shop members, and found concern and a general lack of enthusiasm for switching from the status quo. In the Dec. 1 negotiations, we shared that sentiment with Forbes management. But we said we’d be willing to accept some of its proposal on flexible time off if it was part of a package that also included things we cared about: our revised proposal on hours and overtime (an area intertwined with FTO) and our previously shared editorial integrity proposal. The bargaining committee worked hard to present such a package that would deliver key areas of focus for the unit while compromising on an area of high priority to management. Management, however, rejected the package concept, with its attorney Collins stating the topics weren’t related and it didn’t want to rush through editorial integrity.
Management has had over a year to review editorial integrity. Where’’s the rush?
We do feel like we made progress on FTO and hours and overtime. Despite management saying it saw no need to revisit those issues until the end of 2024 (which would be three years into contract negotiations), we will fight to make progress on them in the near future, even if they would not implement changes until the following year.
Diversity Equity Inclusion and Belonging
The union also provided a counter proposal on diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (DEIB) for management to review before our next meeting. We know this is also a topic of high importance to the unit, and worked to address management’s concerns with our previous proposal, without sacrificing the values that matter to our unit. We demand that management meet us in turn so that we can reach a tentative agreement on this key topic.
While we made progress at the latest bargaining session, let’s be clear: this fight isn’t won at the bargaining table. We win when we all step up and speak out, collectively. We’ll be in touch with next steps soon.
Have any questions about the proposals or anything related to bargaining? Reach out to anyone on the bargaining committee.
Want to get more involved? We’re always looking for new stewards or BC members. Contact Unit Chair Andrea Murphy: andreadmurphy@gmail.com to learn more.
Solidarity,
Your Bargaining Committee
Zach Everson
Alex Konrad
Andrea Murphy
Hank Tucker
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
Shop Paper #19: Light at the end of the tunnel for DEIB but management stonewalls on Editorial Integrity
October 26, 2023
Hi Shop F,
Our meeting with management on October 23, 2023 saw genuine progress – and shameful company behavior and delays.
Ahead of Monday’s meeting, we asked Forbes for a counter to our editorial integrity proposal – first put on the table back in March 2022. We felt that with the reply-all around the U30 Summit speaker concerns in August, repeated demands to implement the proposal, attention around the sale and its very clear conflicts for the newsroom – including the highly alarming Washington Post article on Friday – this issue would be front of mind for management. But that wasn’t the case.
Forbes didn’t show up with a counter and then accused the union of not taking the issue of editorial integrity seriously while saying glibly that they imagined they’d have a response at some point. They made no commitment to having a response at the next session, and dismissed our concerns about the Post article. Forbes’ lawyer seemed surprised and confused as to how it related to editorial integrity. Managing editor Joyce Bautista Ferrari and Chief Human Resource Officer Ali Intres had nothing to say on the topic, which is usually the case for the sole reps management sends to bargaining.
Members of our committee brought up other examples of where the business has reached into the newsroom, most recently with the U30 covers. We explained that right now there are no guidelines; no system for how to handle conflicts of interest. Issues are handled on an ad hoc basis with no transparency. Forbes appeared more interested in attempting to swat down any individual instances of concern than acknowledge a wider issue. Ali and Joyce couldn’t answer if there was an internal code of conduct or set of best practices for editorial integrity. And Joyce even suggested that Forbes putting Summit VIPs on the cover of the magazine was justifiable by merit, so what’s the big deal about it being part of a deal?
Management isn’t willing to take a stand for journalistic ethics. It’s unconcerned that we already have sources telling our reporters that they won’t leak sensitive information to Forbes because of potential Russian ownership influence. And it isn’t bothering to set the record straight if the Post article is incorrect.
This behavior is beyond disappointing – it undermines all of our work in the unit. We can’t let it stand.
We did receive a counter on the company’s DEIB proposal. This proposal puts forward a mechanism for a joint management and union committee to address DEIB issues in the newsroom. This is very similar to what the union put forward back in March 2022. The committee would address issues of outreach, recruitment, and retention of underrepresented groups and propose at least 2 initiatives a year. The company would provide the committee with annual data about the applicant pool that advances beyond the initial screening stage and a financial commitment to attending DEIB conferences and funding initiatives. We will put forward some revisions that strengthen the proposal, but this felt like progress to everyone in the room.
Remember, this is an issue that we’ve been organizing around and fighting for over a year. This progress is because of you.
We also discussed FTO. The big takeaway is that we proposed the FTO policy have a minimum number of days that need to be taken annually and unused days would be paid out at the end of the calendar year. We’ve all seen the studies that show people actually take less time off with what the company has proposed – “unlimited” FTO. Forbes says their FTO policy encourages us to take at least 20 days off and that there’s no mechanism to make people take time off. We got into the weeds a bit about whether Forbes could even calculate an appropriate pay-out figure (They do when they need to!) and that led to a discussion about tracking hours. All unnecessary. Even Lattice, the system Forbes’ HR uses, says that a minimum number of FTO is recommended. Ali and Joyce were seemingly surprised to learn this.
Towards the end of the session we went over a number of counters from Forbes. Typically these proposals aren’t contentious with other publications and are standard parts of NewGuild contracts. Up first was information to the guild. This proposal simply requires Forbes to share information about who is and isn’t a member on a regular basis. Forbes would like to do this twice a year – a nearly useless rhythm – while we are looking for the information more frequently. Forbes seems to think that providing this is a hardship even though they provide it to the union now on request.
Union Security was next. This concerns union dues, how they are paid and a contractual commitment for a union shop. Standard practice is that NewsGuild shops are union shops and dues are deducted out of an employee’s paycheck by the employer and submitted to the union on a regular schedule. Forbes is reluctant to agree to this – again, a standard at all our media peers.
Forbes also had a counter – if you could call it that – on the partnership committee proposal. This puts forward a joint management and union committee that would address issues that come up while the contract is in force. For example, how to address AI in the newsroom, or bringing in a new CMS system. The idea is that the newsroom can get in front of those types of issues and head off problems in a collaborative way. Management didn’t seem to understand the point of the committee – even though partnership committees are not only standard in the media industry, but in unions at large.
Despite giving us very little in that area, management then tried to propose their management rights proposal, which could potentially give the company expansive powers.
Lastly, we touched on coverage & jurisdiction. This proposal outlines who is a member of the union and who can perform bargaining unit work. Forbes management, unsurprisingly, did not want to limit its own ability to pass off unit work to non-unit members such as contractors or temps, or commit to hire new unit members to conduct such work in the event of a departure. We obviously consider that language essential to protect our roles.
Throughout the session, Forbes management attempted to talk down to our committee, through shouting, insulting individual bargaining members, and near constant interruptions.
Despite management’s stonewalling, it’s important to remember that we saw genuine progress on one of the issues we care most about.
When we fight, we win.
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
Shop Paper #18: July 20, 2023
Hello, Shop F! Hope you all have had a restful few weeks since we saw many of you in person in July. Here's an update on where bargaining stands with management.
On July 20, the day after we were able to see many of you at the summer party – and show our unit pride, as well as pose important questions to CEO Mike Federle, which went substantively unanswered – the Bargaining Committee met with management for a bargaining session at Patrick Collins’ office. Forbes has made the question of where such meetings are hosted an unnecessary point of contention throughout the process; a big thanks to those unit members who were able to come to midtown to observe in person.
To start the session, Andrea Murphy presented our pay equity study. We asked Joyce Batista Ferrari for additional context to her Slack message that had upset many members of the unit that called into question the study’s substance, arguing it was missing “critical information.” In response, Patrick ultimately argued that Forbes believed the study was inherently flawed in its foundation, despite the study drawing upon unit census data submitted by Forbes.
Management appeared especially bothered by any inferences the study made about inequality in salary and raises based on gender. The committee strongly stands behind the unit’s work on the study, and noted to Forbes that it has highly qualified and professional reporters within its ranks who take such work as seriously. We maintain that management’s biggest issue with the study isn’t its methodology, but that it’s not prepared to accept the study’s disturbing results when it comes to compensation inequality.
The committee noted that some members had reported being told by managers, incorrectly, that they couldn’t receive a raise at present due to the bargaining negotiations. Ali Intres and Joyce said it had been communicated to managers not to say anything of this nature; the committee requested they send a newsroom-wide note affirming that status quo, which they refused to do.
We then discussed layoff procedures, which the unit will do everything it can to help avoid, but about which we are committed to the fairest and most transparent process, in keeping with other peer shops. Management’s position is that tenure should not play a factor, ostensibly for diversity reasons; the unit’s position is that tenure is a bedrock of such a structure, but that Forbes can always fairly compensate more senior employees it would choose to lay off to go outside seniority order. More importantly, Forbes must address the fact that it’s more tenured employees are disproportionately not diverse, both in hiring and retaining more underrepresented staff to reach such tenure.
We then discussed Hours and Overtime, where management continues to maintain that a flexible time-off policy precludes the need for any overtime pay or additional comp time. We discussed minimums and other ways of tracking after-hours or non-standard hour work to ensure that should the unit move to an FTO policy in the future, members’ rights and ability to actually make up for extra time would be protected and respected.
We then reached two tentative agreements, on Just Cause and Non-Discrimination. These are absolutely crucial proposals for any CBA, and reflect hard work by the committee in past remote bargaining sessions to get these close enough to put over the line in the meeting. The Just Cause proposal protects unit members by ensuring they only receive discipline or a discharge for just cause. The Non-Discrimination proposal ensure both parties will not discriminate against people across a number of criteria such as race, ancestry and citizenship status; that the company will not discriminate against Union members in any way; will refer to employees by their preferred pronouns and honor requests to update any publicly-available work with updated names; and continue to provide gender-neutral bathrooms at the Jersey City office and make reasonable efforts to do so in any other offices with employee workspaces.
To get these two proposals over the line, Forbes and the unit were able to effectively compromise and find common ground in both these agreements. However, the unit was only able to make measurable progress in this session because of the cumulative effect of our collective actions over the past year. We would not have gotten the just cause or non-discrimination agreements we did without your work –packing the bargaining room, working-to-rule, and confronting Federle directly.
We are gratified by the tentative agreements reached and look forward to maintaining this momentum in upcoming sessions. Our next session was tentatively planned for August 16, but Forbes’ representation has refused to meet remotely, despite – or perhaps because of – all of that hard work and our hard-fought progress.
We continue to urge management to work with us to reach an agreement as fast as possible. Two years into bargaining, we on the committee are eager and working hard. Management games about where we bargain, or entertaining remote attendees, goes against how Forbes itself currently operates and isn’t helping us move forward.
A huge thanks to Jonathan Ponciano, who has worked tirelessly on the committee and unit from the beginning. We know you will continue to be an ally as you embark on your exciting next chapter! And a hearty welcome to Zach Everson to the committee, who was already a huge help in his first session. We could use more support. If you’re passionate about key upcoming topics, from journalistic ethics to compensation, please reach out to your steward or a bargaining committee member to discuss potential involvement.
With solidarity,
Your bargaining committee
Zach Everson
Alex Konrad
Andrea Murphy
Jon Ponciano, signing off
Shop Papers #16 and #17: April 18 and April 25, 2023
Hi Shop F,
Despite having a bargaining session on the book for weeks, management unilaterally decided to cancel our session planned for Thursday, June 8th. The company is currently demanding that we bargain in person, without a remote option, despite the fact that we have a remote workforce and over half of our bargaining committee lives out-of-state.
It’s clear the company doesn’t want to allow their employees a window into bargaining.They’d prefer to settle this anti-democratically: out-of-sight, with below-industry standards.
Management’s behavior is insulting and lacks integrity. We won’t let this stand.
Below is a recap of our past two bargaining sessions.
April 25th:
First, some good news. At the session on April 25th we reached a tentative agreement on Grievance & Arbitration. Through the grievance and arbitration process, members will be able to pursue formal remedies in the event of a contract violation. This brings the number of TAs to two (the unacceptable news). While we’d all like to be further along after 15 months of bargaining and 29 proposals on the table, having an agreement on grievance is an important part of creating a strong contract.
After some back and forth on non-discrimination and just cause, two issues where we are close to TAs, we turned to hours and overtime. Unfortunately we didn’t get very far. Management, represented by Ali Intres and Joyce Bautista Ferrari, wouldn’t acknowledge that a 40 hour work week is a standard week at Forbes. A perfect example of how Forbes is slowing down the bargaining process. Joyce and Ali won’t even agree to something that is laid out in the employee handbook.
As it now stands, management does not want to be bound by any work week at all – they want all of our time, personal and professional, to belong to them.
Management and their counsel seemed to be baffled by the idea of members being compensated for working more than 40 hours a week and concerned that members might be working less than a 40 hour week. How would these hours be tracked? What pay rate would be used? Forbes’ position is that our salaries cover hours worked and that tracking anything over 40 hours would be difficult and expensive.
To be clear, many shops in the Guild are compensated in some way for overtime. It’s not an issue.
It will be interesting to see if our work to rule action changes the tone of the conversation around this issue.
April 18th:
We had our 16th session on April 18th. The two-hour session kicked off with a discussion on grievance and arbitration. In its counter, management added language around information requests that we accepted with only minor revisions. We also added a line ensuring nothing in the proposal waives our rights to information permitted under the law—or to seek relief from the NLRB if necessary. This proposal is close to a tentative agreement, and it’s once again in management’s court.
Next, we shifted focus to just cause. After three months with the proposal, management—as represented by Ali Intres and Joyce Bautista Ferrari—came back and said it had not worked on a counter. Despite insisting it wants to reach a collective bargaining agreement as “expeditiously” as possible, it took management three months to say it would not provide an updated response and would instead reject key member protections including providing advanced notice of a union member's discipline or termination, guaranteeing a union representative or steward's presence at disciplinary or discharge meetings, and ensuring appropriate pay for unit members terminated without two weeks' notice. We had already worked to meet in the middle with management, agreeing three months ago that cases of egregious conduct could forego the same standard for advanced notice, yet management gave us nothing else.
After a brief caucus, we worked on another counter—agreeing to some of management's changes but maintaining that a Guild representative or steward should be present at discipline or discharge meetings. This is only fair for our members—especially since management has already shown its willingness to illegally usurp union protections when it terminated one staffer without notice or bargaining last year. We hope management will agree to this crucial protection for members facing discipline, especially after the concessions we have already made to show we are bargaining in good faith.
The final discussion—on our non-discrimination proposal—was perhaps the most frustrating. We’ve been insisting for months management should work to support union members' visa applications as fairly as possible. Management has instead argued not all members are as equally valued or equally skilled, and in its latest response, it rejected the notion that it should use "reasonable" discretion to evaluate whether it will support employee visa applications. Instead, management says it wants to retain its “sole” discretion. Management has already proven its practices and judgment lead to inequity in the newsroom, and now it’s flat out rejecting the opportunity to commit to “reasonable” discretion as it evaluates employees who critically need support.
The Board Charge
One more important update: , you all received an email from Ali Intres on the Friday of Memorial Day weekend about our NLRB charge. That was part of the settlement we reached with Forbes over the unfair labor charge we filed back in February 2022. We filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board that Forbes over failure to bargain over compensation changes (salary changes, job title changes and promotions). Instead of notifying the union about their intent to change people’s job duties – therefore depriving us of an opportunity to bargain for better and more – they bypassed you all.
We won the case and the settlement included a provision that Forbes had to send out a notice to all bargaining unit members explaining your rights as union members and listing what the company will not do, things like “not make changes to your job position, wages, or other terms and conditions of employment without first notifying the Union and giving the Union an opportunity to bargain.” Please reach out to Andea Murphy if you have any questions about the ULP or the settlement.
We’re working to schedule our next batch of bargaining sessions for June and July. Keep an eye out for the dates! Your attendance is crucial to push this forward.
Have any questions about the proposals? 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.
In solidarity, your bargaining committee,
Merrilee Barton
Alex Konrad
Andrea Murphy
Jon Ponciano
Shop Paper #14 and #15: With action comes progress
Hey Shop F,
We had two bargaining sessions in March with very different tones. Does “In like a lion, out like a lamb” work for bargaining too?
We’ll review our most recent session first, so it’s easier to see how we’ve progressed.
Our most recent season was on March 23rd. We opened with questions about the planned office consolidation. Many of our members don’t have a Forbes phone/number and have to use their personal calls for their work. And only a handful of folks are allowed to expense part of their bills. We addressed the expenses related to a remote office such as phones and office equipment in our remote work proposal. (Just one of 16 proposals that Forbes hasn’t responded to yet out of the 29 presented in March and June of last year.) Ali did confirm that members with a Forbes number will be able to keep it. But she wouldn’t answer any questions about whether Forbes will reimburse for personal phones. There were other questions about shipping the contents of desk to folks in the tri-state area, whether there will be storage available if needed, retaining fact checking documents for legal reasons and how Forbes plans to keep the business and editorial divisions separate.
Ali seemed exasperated by these questions and tried to tell us that we have nothing to worry about because “Forbes is so generous.” A statement most of our members wouldn’t agree with, especially those who haven’t seen a raise since before the union started or have tried to negotiate increases that actually reflect their work.
Next up were our counters on union security, coverage & jurisdiction and Forbes’ management rights proposal and a Forbes counter on non-discrimination. We rejected nearly all of their management rights language. We’re getting closer on union security and coverage & jurisdiction. Interestingly, Forbes finally returned their non-discrimination proposal – we’re currently looking over language related to visas in the non-discrimination proposal and are close to a TA there.
The tone of this session was markedly different than the one earlier in March and all the others we’ve had over the past year. Anyone who’s been to a bargaining session over the past year is familiar with how Forbes’ lawyer conducts himself (behavior that Joyce and Ali have not once tried to reign in). But in the 3/27 session he was professional and respectful for the entire session. The difference? This bargaining session came after our successful educational picket of the Pay Equity event on March 15th. For the first time in a long time, we came away from a session feeling like progress had been made.
It’s clear that in order to win this thing, we’ll have to do more than speak eloquently at the table. Collective action is, simply and logistically, our greatest weapon.
Compare this session with the one we had earlier in the month.
On Tuesday, March 7, we met with Forbes management, where it became pretty clear to us that they weren’t even pretending to bargain in good faith. Management “rejected” our severance proposal without offering a counter and alleged our reduction in force proposal was “anti-DEI” – even though they won’t commit to any of our DEI proposals around hiring or promotions and are only offering a toothless DEI committee.
Management is trying to divide us by pitting longer-tenured employees against employees from underrepresented groups. But what it really comes down to is they want to lay off whoever they want, whenever they want and don’t want to commit to paying anyone severance. We’re here to tell you our union cares about all of our members regardless of their age or race or gender or any other identity, and we will fight for you.
The three-hour session kicked off with a discussion around our leaves of absence proposal. Our proposal covered parental and caregiver leave, sabbaticals, book/creative leave, general leave, jury duty, voting time and military leave. Forbes rejected nearly everything, claiming these leaves are covered under current law or would be part of their proposed FlexibleTime Off policy. Our goal is to give members more than the minimum covered by law. Forbes rejected increasing parental leave to 26 weeks and instead kept it at the current 12. The same for caregiver leave where we proposed 26 weeks and Forbes countered to keep it at 6 weeks. A sabbatical for employees with 5 or more years of tenure and general leave (for situations not covered by specific leaves) were both completely red lined.
We were able to have a discussion around book/creative leave. Forbes currently offers book leave but there’s no standard policy. It’s up to members to negotiate the terms of book leave individually with their managers and HR. We want to have a transparent policy where the terms are clearly outlined. Our proposal called for book/creative leave to be paid. Forbes countered that all book leave would be unpaid and would have to contribute directly to the employees job in order to be approved. To us, this is exactly why book or creative leave should be paid when it connects to a member's work at Forbes.
Ultimately, Forbes wants the ability to limit the types of leave members can take, whether it’s paid or not, and the length of leave. The language Forbes uses in the counterproposal tries to make it seem that they are being generous when it’s the opposite. As is the case in other areas such as DEI and editorial integrity, Forbes isn’t keeping up with media industry peers.
Next, we shifted to the union’s severance proposal. We’ve proposed employees get 12 weeks of severance for the first year they’ve worked at Forbes plus an additional week’s pay for every 6 months worked beyond that. Forbes lawyer Patrick Collins told us they were “rejecting” the proposal and not offering a counter. He said Forbes “has paid severance at times in the past” but was not planning to include severance in the collective bargaining agreement. When we asked management to write down the company’s current practices around severance to have a place to start from as a counter, Patrick replied: “There is no policy, there is no parameter. There is no practice.” Bottom line: Management wants severance (if any is paid at all) to be solely at its discretion. The union believes there should be a transparent calculation for severance that applies to all employees equally.
Next we discussed the union’s reduction in force proposal. In the event of a layoff, we have proposed that the company needs to notify the union of the names of people it plans to layoff and the date of the layoffs. Management’s counter proposal says it shall provide this information “upon request.” Given how long it usually takes management to respond to our requests for information, this could be months. We proposed 30 days notice of layoffs and the opportunity to discuss alternatives to layoffs, such as different roles or buyouts. Management countered with 14 days and no discussion. They also rejected our proposals for the opportunity for volunteers and job swaps, saying volunteers could be considered on a “case-by-case” basis but it’s not something they want to lock into the contract. That’s when Patrick said the quiet part out loud: “There are some employees who are more valued and better than others.”
Our proposals for reduction in force and severance call for reverse seniority order. If Forbes wants to lay people off out of seniority order, the company can do so, but they need to pay a premium. Patrick went on a bizarre tangent alleging this was “anti-DEI,” since it means that the more diverse employees Forbes has hired in the past few years would be laid off first. Patrick, Ali and Joyce tried to pose hypotheticals using our unit chair Andrea Murphy as an example of a longer tenured employee who would be paid more severance than a more recently hired Black employee.
Our response: our reduction in force and severance proposals take into account length of service. Any employee regardless of their race or gender or any other identity will be considered the same. These bizarre contortions to try and divide our unit only prove one point: that Forbes has an institutional problem with diversity in the newsroom because the company has not made it a priority until very recently. Rather than reframing to deflect accountability, they should agree to our DEI counterproposal.
Some housekeeping, back in February 2022 the union filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge with the National Labor Relations Board. The charge was about Forbes not negotiating with the union around raises and promotions from July to December 2021. The Board found that our charge has merit and will be going to trial (heard by an administrative law judge) in May.
Follow the progress along at our upcoming bargaining sessions. Your attendance is crucial to push this forward!
Friday, April 14: 10 a.m. - 1 p.m. ET
Tuesday, April 25: 10 a.m. - 1 p.m. ET
Have any questions about the proposals? 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.
In solidarity, your bargaining committee,
Merrilee Barton
Alex Konrad
Katie Jennings
Andrea Murphy
Jon Ponciano
Shop Paper #13: Management rejects union security and mocks employees’ long work weeks
February 22, 2023
Hey Shop F,
We had our latest bargaining session with management on Wednesday, February 22—the 13th overall since we started last March. We discussed several working proposals, bolded for reference below, and we have four new dates scheduled (listed at the end).
The three-hour session kicked off with a discussion around our union security proposal, which would enshrine our right to organize, designate Forbes a union shop (wherein we maintain our strength as a union by having all eligible employees be Guild members, as permitted by law) and establish a procedure for how union dues are deducted from paychecks. In its counter, management rejected the notion that we should be able to speak truthfully and candidly about our treatment by supervisors on social media, and it also rejected the provisions that would designate Forbes a union shop and establish the dues payment procedure, known as checkoff.
These are standard provisions at NYGuild shops like the New York Times and Sports Illustrated, yet management, as represented by Ali Intres and Joyce Bautista Ferrari, claims the union shop provision is "coercive" and that the annual dues of 1.75% (which wouldn’t kick in until after we have secured a contract) are “concerning.” In addition to being standard across union shops, these provisions unequivocally give us the strength to win big on issues—economic and otherwise—that matter most to so many, and that’s why management is dragging its feet here—not because it cares about our concerns. Though it laments the costs of dues, management has not given a single penny in salary increases to nearly 20% of unit members who’ve been with Forbes since we unionized. Fellow NYGuild shops routinely win annual raises that well exceed the 1.75% dues, and in many cases, are tied to inflation. These wins—and much more—will be made possible with a strong union. We are clearly out of sync with management on the issue of union security, but it is well worth the fight.
Next, we shifted to the non-discrimination proposal. Management continues to insist it will not support or make decisions concerning bargaining unit employees’ visa applications based on the same criteria applied for similarly situated employees outside the bargaining unit. On this crucial issue, management is rejecting the opportunity for transparency, instead saying: “We're not going to get into how we make a visa sponsorship determination and what we're looking at for employees who are not represented by the union.” We continue to believe management should make a fair commitment to support members in need of visas.
Management then presented its counter proposal for coverage and jurisdiction. In this, we outline who is eligible for union representation and seek to eliminate Forbes’ use of contract work to replace the work of salaried employees—often at the detriment of contract workers who receive no benefits and little clarity around how long they will remain on contract. Management rejected language that would include interns and fellows in the unit, along with language barring the company from reassigning unit-member work duties to supervisors, managers or other non-Bargaining Unit employees. Management also said Forbes does not use independent contractors to avoid hiring replacements for departed unit members—a claim many of us in the newsroom know to be false; Forbes routinely hires independent contractors—without benefits—to do our work, while claiming it is looking for a replacement. This often goes on for months, or indefinitely. This, again, is an issue we will fight for.
Lastly, Forbes presented two of its own proposals, concerning management rights. In these, management is looking to strip us of the ability to negotiate raises for all members and is instead seeking to continue its established policy of granting salary increases using its own discretion. Once again, management is seeking to sacrifice transparency to serve its own agenda—one which has led to disproportionately low pay and smaller raises for women, who make up nearly two-thirds of our bargaining unit who have not received raises since we unionized. This is disappointing and unacceptable. We have successfully negotiated raises for several members in the more than 15 months since Forbes stopped illegally keeping us out of pay negotiations, and this is a right we clearly can not give back.
Unfortunately, the meeting ended on a disappointing note. When we asked when we would get a counter on our hours and overtime proposal (which seeks to establish a system for overtime pay), management said it would not agree to provide unit members comp time for extra time spent working because comp time is supposedly included in the flexible time off policy that the vast majority of us do not want. Bargaining committee members then discussed our overwhelming collective desire for overtime pay and mentioned the arduous magazine closes that routinely require some members to work 60+ hour weeks. To this, management mockingly responded, "These are salaried employees working in a terrible sweatshop apparently.”
At this point, it was clear management did not want to take the issue of overtime seriously, so we ended the meeting. That said, we will continue to push on this language that is (yet again) common in many NYGuild units because we know the issue is of utmost importance to many in our unit.
Follow the progress along at our upcoming bargaining sessions. Your attendance is crucial to push this forward!
Tuesday, March 7: 10 a.m. - 1 p.m. ET
Thursday, March 23: 10 a.m. - 1 p.m. ET
Friday, April 14: 10 a.m. - 1 p.m. ET
Tuesday, April 25: 10 a.m. - 1 p.m. ET
Have any questions about the proposals? 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.
In solidarity, your bargaining committee,
Merrilee Barton
Alex Konrad
Katie Jennings
Andrea Murphy
Jon Ponciano
Shop Paper #12: Forbes: Fighting for your right not to take vacation
January 24, 2023
We met with Forbes on Tuesday, January 24th. This was our first session of 2023 and 12th overall. Again, Forbes showed up nearly empty-handed. To date, we’ve submitted 29 proposals, while Forbes management has only offered 8 counters.
Despite what the company said at Tuesday’s town hall,, it’s clear that management is trying to slow-walk the bargaining process and stop us from getting the contract we deserve.
Let’s start with the Union’s counter on the access to content proposal. The union is looking to ensure that former employees have access to their work and are notified if Forbes plans to delete content/published material. The first part of the problem is taken care of by Forbes offering former employees a free subscription to Forbes.com for one year. Management objected to the section where they would be required to notify former employees before their content is deleted for the 12 months after leaving Forbes. There was a lot of back and forth about how deleting content has been handled in the past and whether notifying former employees puts too big a burden on Forbes. Even though this is a relatively innocuous subject, the company refused to agree to the Guild’s proposal standard-issue proposal at the session.
Next up was the non-discrimination proposal. This is one of the proposals related to DEI and has been discussed at length in other sessions. On Tuesday we spent a fair amount of time discussing the structure of the union and whether the contract can dictate how the union treats its members. It’s evident that the company was trying to dictate when and where the union can speak to its members – a violation of our legal rights.
We then moved to the provision related to the immigration status of members. Our position is that Forbes should use the same criteria for similarly situated members and non members to decide whether to support or sponsor a member. Ali Intres shared information about the company’s current process and indicated that the company would be willing to consider revised language on this section.
The last section discussed was gender neutral bathrooms. We want the language to reflect that a gender neutral bathroom will be available wherever Forbes is based. Yet again, the company was resistant.
While we’re nonetheless happy about the progress made on the non-discrimination proposal, let’s be clear what the company’s strategy is here. They’ve carved up our DEI proposal to give us something that is *just above* what the law requires. It’s unacceptable. Together with all of you, we will continue our fight for a transformational proposal.
After a short break, we discussed Forbes’ counter on the vacation and time off proposal. Under current policy, employees receive a set number of time off days (vacation days, sick days, days of impact, summer Fridays). Management proposed the current system would remain in effect until December 31, 2023, when it would be replaced by the company’s new “flexible time off” policy. The FTO policy has no set days and “encourages” employees to take off a minimum of 20 days. A reminder that any changes to existing policies under status quo require the approval of the union, meaning the company cannot change the existing policy until we reach an agreement.
Let’s be clear about the reason management wants to change the vacation policy: cost savings. Management doesn’t want to pay out unused vacation time when someone leaves the company, which they have to do under the current system where days are accrued and defined.
Bargaining committee members reiterated many of the concerns we have heard from the unit. Many of our unit members already have difficulty taking time off and take care to plan around list and magazine closes, especially given issues with staffing. There is also significant variation by manager – some encourage vacation while others discourage taking time off. Many unit members are also frequently contacted about work issues while they are on vacation.
How many times have you had to work on vacation and been told by your manager they would “make it up” to you but that promise is conveniently forgotten a few months later?
The bargaining committee raised concerns that if unit members already have issues taking vacation under the current system where days are defined, that it would be much more difficult to negotiate these requests when the number of days are undefined. That’s why we kept asking management about how they would enforce that employees actually take the minimum number of days.
Ali Intres said the company would not enforce or mandate that people take vacation, giving the example of an employee who “doesn’t” want to take all their vacation days. We are not worried about the employees who don’t want to take their vacation. We are worried about the employees who feel like they “can’t” take vacation, because of the workplace culture on their teams around taking time off or the lack of staffing that makes it almost impossible to find a “good” time to be off.
Is it really a vacation if you come back and have to do your work for the week you return plus everything you missed the previous week because there was no one to cover for you?
Ali also said that she only got 15 vacation days last year and planned to take “more than 20” this year and was “not going to feel guilty.” That’s great if Ali wants to model taking more than 20 days of vacation for her team and also plans to approve more than 20 days of vacation for the employees who directly report to her. But this also represents the inherent power dynamic with vacation in a flexible time off policy: you need to have a manager who is OK with you taking 20 days off, otherwise there is no backstop to say you are guaranteed to take that time.
Management would further not commit to guaranteeing the annual company closure between Christmas and New Year. The company further proposed 11 holidays, while the union’s proposal had 15.
It’s clear that we need to use our collective muscle to force the company to take action – and we will.
The Forbes union was represented by bargaining committee members Merrilee Barton, Alex Konrad, Jon Ponciano, Andrea Murphy and Katie Jennings, NewsGuild rep Anthony Napoli and lawyer Thomas Lamadrid. Forbes was represented by Chief HR Officer Ali Intres, Managing Editor Joyce Bautista Ferrari and outside counsel Patrick Collins.
Have any questions about the proposals? 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.
Our next session is scheduled for February 22 from 10AM to 1PM EST.
In solidarity, your bargaining committee:
Merrilee Barton
Alex Konrad
Katie Jennings
Andrea Murphy
Jon Ponciano
Shop Papers #9, #10 and #11
Hey Shop F!
Greetings from your bargaining committee. We fell behind in sending out shop papers at the end of the year. So here are #9, #10 and #11 for you all. These sessions covered a number of proposals including the FTO policy, DEI, and Just Cause.
Have any questions about the proposals? 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.
Our next session is tomorrow, January 24th, from 2-5PM EST.
Shop Paper #9
November 16, 2022
We had our 8th bargaining session with Forbes on November 16. This was a four-hour session with Forbes being represented by SVP of Human Resources Ali Intres, Managing Editor Joyce Bautista Ferrari and outside counsel Patrick Collins.
About 30 minutes before the session started all employees received an email from management announcing changes to the company’s time off policy for 2023. The FTO (flexible time off ) policy would go into effect for bargaining unit employees on January 1, but requires the approval of the union for unit members.
Brooke Dunmore, VP of benefits, presented the new policy. The new plan would replace the various types of time off (vacation, sick days, days of impact, summer fridays) which have a set number of days with a plan that encourages employees to take a minimum of 20 days off. This new FTO policy doesn’t include short or long term disability, parental leave, and caregiver leave. Forbes’ position is that employees know best the flow of their work. This policy encourages them to “own their responsibilities” and request time off when it’s best for their role. However, all requests need to be approved by a manager.
Bargaining committee members flagged a number of issues with the FTO policy. It puts a lot of emphasis on employees booking time off when it works best for their job and their team. This is something that everyone in the unit already does. We all think about projects, lists, magazine closes when requesting days off. All of this when many teams are understaffed. However, things come up, plans get made, people get sick. This policy makes dealing with time off less certain.
Folks at Forbes already have a difficult time taking time off. Management tried to frame this as a communication issue, that folks need to talk to their manager and escalate to HR if necessary. We brought up issues of managers telling employees to ask for days off in Slack before putting the request in ADP, sitting on requests or simply having such an intense workload that it felt impossible to take a day off. Additionally, there are managers who have the mentality that since they can’t take time off, the folks who work for me shouldn’t be able to either. We wanted to know what Forbes plans to do to train managers and ensure that there is a way to handle disputes about requests.
We suggested that if Forbes was truly concerned about employees getting a chance to recharge, the policy could be changed to require people to take time off instead of just encouraging it. This is found in some contracts and is standard policy in some industries.
Joyce and Ali did say that they can get reports of pending requests, etc. and would be looking at the data. They also agreed that managers shouldn’t be asking people to make requests outside of ADP. We wrapped up the discussion by saying the union would be sending over a request for information related to the FTO data brought up in the meeting and then took a break.
After returning from the break, there was a brief but intense discussion about the bargaining process. When both sides come to an agreement on an issue, we have what is called a tentative agreement (TA). NewsGuild practice is to have both sides sign the TA and then there’s a record of what has been agreed to on that issue. This helps both sides put together the final version of the contract since there’s a record of exactly what has been agreed to. Forbes’ lawyer felt that this was an outrageous request and stormed out of the meeting (as best he could since we were on Zoom). The issue here isn’t that Forbes’ lawyer got upset -- that happens. The issue is that Forbes hired a lawyer who hasn’t negotiated a contract with the NewGuild or on behalf of a media company. He’s not familiar with how the Guild bargains, how we do our jobs, journalistic ethics, and what has been negotiated in other Guild contracts.
Patrick eventually returned and we briefly discussed our proposal on Just Cause before ending at 2PM.
Shop Paper #10
December 8, 2022
On December 8, we convened with management remotely for our 10th bargaining session. To kick things off, we were joined by special guest Dolores Huerta, an iconic labor organizer and Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient who coined the "Sí, se puede" motto of the United Farm Workers of America. Dolores was in New York City for a Forbes 50 Over 50 luncheon and graciously agreed to attend a session with management to discuss the importance of reaching a collective bargaining agreement as expeditiously as possible.
Dolores discussed her experience leading union campaigns for American farmworkers and stressed the value of diversity across all organizations. As we've been telling management, Dolores also emphasized the importance of securing a strong diversity committee, with resources and measurable goals: "Remember, [the committee] has got to be resourced; it's got to be strong, and it's got to have goals that can be measured, so people can be held accountable if the outcome is not what it should be."
We’ve been discussing the implementation of measurable DEI goals with management, as represented by Chief of Human Resources Ali Intres and Managing Editor Joyce Bautista Ferrari, for months but unfortunately have yet to see them accept—or even show willingness to accept—such goals. We are incredibly thankful for Dolores’ testimony! However, we are disappointed management attempted to cancel the session the day prior after we told them Dolores would attend, and became abrasive when unit members asked to take a screenshot photo with Dolores in a show of solidarity on the Zoom call. We ultimately had to sign off and ask Dolores to hop onto another Zoom to take the photo, but the moment was powerful nonetheless, and to lighten the mood, Dolores jokingly referred to management’s sudden abrasiveness as “Forbes acting like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.”
In our negotiations, Forbes has repeatedly acknowledged there is ample opportunity to improve DEI within the newsroom, but frustratingly, management once again spent the bulk of this session lamenting how “difficult” these goals would be and in some instances, called them “impossible.” They are not impossible. Peers like Time and Sports Illustrated have already committed to working toward ensuring at least 50% of the applicant pool making it beyond the initial interview stage be individuals from underrepresented backgrounds. Forbes has thus far refused to do so.
We are now waiting on management to counter our DEI proposal, and we are ready to escalate this as necessary if management continues to neglect its duty to DEI. After a caucus we spent the rest of our session negotiating our grievance and arbitration proposal. After several rounds of counters, we are close to reaching an agreement that allows disputes to be presented within 30 days of a violation occurring and requires supervisors to respond within 30 days, with any grievances then moving to the head of HR and/or arbitration if necessary.
Shop Paper #11
December 14, 2022
In our December 14 session, we discussed several proposals, including Non-Discrimination, Just Cause, No Strike/Lockout, and Access to Content. We also discussed Forbes’ push to put the unit on a flexible time off policy, and why we rejected this proposal with the best interests of the unit at heart. Thanks to all the unit members who stopped by part of the long session to show their support!
As with some sessions in the past, we got off to a slow start as Forbes’ counsel Patrick Collins objected to the methods of how the Bargaining Committee was hoping to move the Non-Discrimination proposal toward a tentative agreement. Forbes had brought forward a counter-proposal on November 9 that ignored much of what the unit previously put forward. A good hour was spent going back and forth about why Forbes management, through Collins, seems to believe that they dictate the terms of such agreements, for the Bargaining Committee to simply red-line and accept.
The Committee and our tireless representatives Anthony Napoli, Heather Trobe and Thomas Lamadrid put it back to Collins that much time and energy could be saved if Forbes would amend, instead of attempting to disregard and replace, unit proposals. Another point of contention was access to gender neutral bathrooms. The unit felt strongly that Forbes should do its best to provide such bathrooms in any offices it might operate with unit members in the U.S. Management conspicuously wished to limit this entirely to the current Jersey City office. Eventually, Collins et al returned with a red-line of the unit proposal that restated its positions, without compromise, for the Committee to continue to evaluate and respond to in the future.
Forbes then raised its Flexible Time Off proposal again, informing the Committee that this was its final chance to reach an agreement for the 2023 calendar year. Collins told the Committee that such a policy would supersede all unit proposals about vacation, comp time and others, including a clause in the unit’s Non-Discrimination proposal ensuring unit members could take time off for necessary appearances to maintain their and their families’ immigration status. Collins told the Committee that it could choose to bargain over including part-time staff in such a policy, as they would not be covered under management’s proposal.
Collins claimed that if the Committee didn’t agree to such an overarching FTO proposal immediately, Forbes would not return to the table to bargain over it midyear. It should be noted that paid time off is a mandatory subject of bargaining and Forbes is obliged to bargain over terms. The Committee rejected this proposal, noting that it did not protect our unit from being asked to work overtime or weekend hours, that such policies have been found by studies to lead workers to take less vacation, and that such a proposal would preempt other rights that the unit has long believed are important to a healthy and productive work environment.
In the afternoon, the Committee and management were able to find more common ground. The Committee reviewed Collins’ counter proposal on Just Cause (which notably removed the promise that Forbes follow principles of progressive discipline) and that the company provide advance warning before taking disciplinary action including termination. The two sides discussed exceptions or limits to advance warning, including for egregious conduct. Management held to a no-notice position, and no agreement was reached yet.
On Access To Content, management provided a counter-proposal suggesting a shorter period of notice for former employees to receive notification if their content would be deleted from the Forbes site, and a shorter period of access to a subscription to reach that content. Management also countered to remove its obligation to store and provide that information on request. The Committee believes that advance notice of any deletion or removal from public view is important to the Unit and protecting its work, and will continue to work to reach a resolution.
That same afternoon, the present Committee members in-office, Alex Konrad and Jon Ponciano, appeared at Randall Lane’s scheduled Q+A with the Wealth team to ask him about the unit’s DEI proposal. Despite current and former staff sharing powerful testimonials and the high priority that this remains across our Unit, management has been slow to respond and unwilling to accept or compromise with the Unit’s demands for a diverse, equitable and inclusive workplace. Thanks to John Hyatt and Giacomo Tognini for also asking important questions during this session.
Asked about the delay, and invited to attend the Bargaining session or otherwise assist in an agreement, Lane responded at length that he supports bargaining coming to a speedy agreement; that he hopes the parties can reach a DEI proposal that goes far beyond what any other newsroom promises; that a more diverse newsroom has long been his high priority, and that he would urge the newsroom not to set back others by hiring diverse people away from them versus bringing more people into the industry; and that, all that said, he would not be joining the session. Management had delegated Ali Intres and Joyce Bautista Ferrari to represent newsroom leaders in Bargaining, he claimed, and he did not wish to undermine them. But Lane dashed out the door to an awards ceremony on a hopeful note that perhaps he could assist in some other way, to be determined, in reaching a swift agreement.
The Bargaining Committee is diligently working on more counters and proposals to bring to management, despite its slow and sometimes frustrating pace of response, and looks forward to our next bargaining session on January 24th from 2-5PM ET.
Shop Paper #8: Management’s response to Diversity, Equity & Inclusion
November 9, 2022
Hey Shop F,
We were back at the bargaining table with management on Wednesday, November 9, for a four-hour session (our eighth overall). As usual, Forbes was represented by SVP of Human Resources Ali Intres, Managing Editor Joyce Bautista Ferrari and outside counsel Patrick Collins. To kick things off, we shared our counter for grievance and arbitration, having only made one change to management's last proposal. We also accepted management's latest counter on access to personnel files and set it up as a tentative agreement—our first since we started bargaining in March (assuming management accepts it) and a crucial step in negotiating our contract.
Unfortunately, the session then took a frustrating and disappointing turn. Last month, we convened colleagues past and present to discuss DEI in the newsroom. They championed the value diverse journalists can bring to Forbes and its coverage, lamented Forbes’ lack of meaningful progress in the recruitment and retention of editorial staffers from underrepresented groups and even divulged personal experiences regarding racism and sexism in the newsroom. In response, Forbes management presented some slides defining diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging (DEIB), discussed existing DEIB measures and then offered up a counter proposal that ignored and effectively rejected the union’s desire to institute specific DEI goals with regards to recruitment.
It’s important to be clear here: If we accepted management’s DEI proposals, we would have the worst diversity language accepted by management (and a union) at newsrooms across the NewsGuild of New York. That’s what management wants, but it can’t happen. With its sparse DEI language, Forbes management is insisting on remaining completely unaccountable to its words—and unabashedly going against its claims that it values making meaningful progress toward DEI (in addition to effectively endorsing existing practices that have led to high turnover among staffers from underrepresented groups). Our NewsGuild peers at Time, Sports Illustrated, Quartz, the Daily Beast and more have committed—in their contracts—to working toward ensuring at least 50% of the applicant pool making it beyond the initial interview stage be individuals from underrepresented groups, and Time has upped that threshold to 60% for senior-level decision makers. On Wednesday, management committed to no recruitment goals. It failed to live up to the DEI commitments made by Forbes’ peers and instead of welcoming the accountability, claimed efforts at other companies are "obviously not working," shifted part of the blame to editorial staffers for not recommending more diverse candidates and likened the union’s desire to institute goals to the “definition of insanity.” This was vastly disheartening, and it’s unacceptable.
Though a very frustrating 90-minute discussion overall, the back and forth did yield a couple of good things: Management asked to see examples of the DEI language instituted by fellow NewsGuild shops, which the committee will happily send over, and we hope doing so helps Forbes realize it shouldn’t fall behind its peers on DEI. Several times, management also acknowledged Forbes can and should do better, and expressed frustration with regards to the challenges in doing so. We understand it’s not easy, and that’s why we are pushing for a DEI committee tasked with taking on the hard work of helping management meet specific, measurable and ambitious goals. With this contract, Forbes has an opportunity to raise the standards for DEI in the journalism industry, and we hope management quickly changes its noncommittal tune on DEI. We will fight for it.
After a 20-minute caucus, we shifted discussion to other proposals: Our counter for information to the guild followed by our byline and hours & overtime proposals. Management expressed the byline proposal should include limitations and seemed understanding of byline issues around unit-member security. Management also asked questions around the hours & overtime proposal that helped foster a healthy discussion, but said “there's not going to be much appetite” with regards to paying overtime for salaried employees. Obviously, this is a sticking point for us, particularly since it is already common practice at NewsGuild peers including the New York Times, Law360 and more. However, in the spirit of moving things along, we simply asked for a response to the hours component of the proposal for now and plan to continue the discussion at our next session. We also agreed to send over examples of overtime language at our Newsguild sister shops.
We’ll be back at it in another bargaining session next Wednesday, November 16 at 10 a.m. ET. And as always, a quick shout out to unit rep Anthony Napoli, lawyer Thomas Lamadrid and the roughly 25 observers who attended our latest session. Your support is crucial in moving this along. We’ll see you at the next one.
Have any questions about the proposals? 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.
In solidarity, your bargaining committee:
Merrilee Barton
Alex Konrad
Andrea Murphy
Jon Ponciano
Shop Paper #7: Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
October 21, 2022
Hello Shop F,
We had our 7th bargaining session with management on Friday, October 21st. This was a three hour meeting where Forbes was represented by SVP of Human Resources Ali Intres, Managing Editor Joyce Bautista Ferrari and outside counsel Patrick Collins. The union had over two dozen members present as well as the bargaining committee, our NewsGuild rep Anthony Napoli and lawyer Thomas Lamadrid. CEO Mike Federle and Chief Content Officer Randall Lane were invited to attend but did not show up.
Bargaining committee member Jon Ponciano opened the session by telling attendees that the union was planning to discuss our DEI proposal. This was first presented to management at our first session in March 2022—nearly seven months ago—and discussed in part at our second session in June. Jon also said that we planned to present testimonials. Forbes then interrupted and asked for assurances that the only people in attendance were current members of the bargaining unit. There had been a back and forth ahead of the meeting about whether the union could invite former staffers to provide testimonials about DEI at this meeting. We felt that this was reasonable and did inform Forbes ahead of time. However, Forbes objected to having journalists from other organizations present, despite our assurance that these people weren’t planning on writing about the session. Forbes stated they wouldn’t attend if former staffers were present.
To us, this was a lost opportunity for Forbes to learn more and ask questions. The company has emphasized its commitment to DEI so why wouldn’t Forbes want to hear about the experience of former staff related to this issue? Creating a more diverse, equitable and inclusive newsroom is hard but not listening to people who have experiences to share doesn’t make it easier. In the end we decided to ask the former staffers to either record their statements or have it read by a unit member so the meeting could continue as planned. And once we assured Forbes that the only people in attendance were current staffers, we were able to continue.
Jon then introduced the first of four speakers. First up was Jared Council, senior editor for For(bes) the Culture. He spoke powerfully about being a black journalist and how diversity in the newsroom produces better journalism. Next was former Forbes wealth reporter Deniz Cam (now a producer for The Problem with Jon Stewart). Not allowed to attend by management, she sent a video that we shared. She spoke about her experience as an immigrant at Forbes on a sponsored visa and the way management treated that visa as a debt to be paid off. Matt Perez, a former Forbes reporter (now at Law360), had his testimonial read by Lisette Voytko because he wasn’t permitted to attend in person. His statement touched on various abusive and discriminatory practices and the toll they take on the newsroom and him personally. The last person to speak was Andrea Murphy, statistics editor and unit chair. She talked about how little Forbes has changed over her 22 years with the company and that this was a chance for the company to set high goals around DEI and live up to their public statements. All the testimonials are attached to this email. Please take the time to read/watch if you weren’t able to make it on the 21st.
After the testimonials, Jon asked if Forbes was going to send us a counter to our entire proposal or whether their non discrimiation and DEIB committee proposals were all that they were offering on the topic. This did prompt Forbes to agree to discuss the rest of our DEI proposal. Joyce and Ali had some questions about the scope of our proposal. However, we were disappointed by the tenor of the questions: rarely did they touch the “meaty” parts of the proposal. Instead, Forbes’ line of questioning was around basic, widely accepted legal language. This felt more like a “surface” conversation than a real bargaining one. Still, the bargaining committee answered questions from Forbes about sections 3 through 6, covering gender expression, immigration, equity and a budget for the proposed diversity committee. We anticipate a more thorough response from the company at the next bargaining session.
At the end of this discussion, and after we headed off Forbes’ lawyer attempt to rehash a discussion from our June 13th session about Forbes committing to goals, the company said that it would send a counter to our entire DEI proposal and stop asking us to negotiate DEI in pieces.
After a short break, Forbes sent us counter proposals on access to personnel files and grievance & arbitration. We’re close on both and hope to have our first tentative agreements at the next session. Management declined to provide a counter on the bulletin board proposal and said they were standing on their last proposal. That proposal limited what the union could post on a bulletin board in the Jersey City office. It’s disappointing that Forbes feels that limiting speech is an acceptable proposal.
An update from our last session where we had an intense debate with Forbes about our agreement regarding the Assistant Editor role, specifically raising the minimum salary of the unit members who have chosen the new General Reporter role. Our position is that the minimum should have been raised once we came to an agreement with Forbes in August and that some staffers were due retroactive pay. Forbes maintained that they would raise the salary once the needed AE Contributors had been hired. We have come to an agreement and the salary minimum will go into effect on November 1.
We have four sessions planned before the end of the year. Please make every effort to attend.
-November 9, 11AM-3PM EST
-November 16m 10AM-2PM EST
-December 8, 10AM-2PM EST
-December 14, 11AM-3PM EST
Have any questions about the proposals? 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.
In solidarity, your bargaining committee:
Merrilee Barton
Alex Konrad
Andrea Murphy
Jon Ponciano
Shop Paper #6: Reproductive rights proposal and delayed wage increases
October 4, 2022
Hey Shop F,
After a month-long break for the end of summer, we were back at the bargaining table with management on Tuesday, October 4, for a two-hour session (our sixth since we started bargaining in March). Forbes was represented by SVP of Human Resources Ali Intres, Managing Editor Joyce Bautista Ferrari and outside counsel Patrick Collins.
To kick things off, we asked why a few of our colleagues who will be stepping into new roles have yet to receive raises we negotiated and agreed to on August 12. That day, in an email, Forbes management said the transitions would be implemented “immediately”; however, more than six weeks later, three unit members have yet to receive the raises, and there’s still no clarity as to when they will fully step into their new roles.
We asked whether management has started actively interviewing for the roles; the answer was yes. We asked if there was a timeline for the hires; management didn’t offer one. The pro-rated salary adjustments would amount to less than $10,000. That’s a meaningful amount for the staffers who rightfully deserve their raises, but perhaps less meaningful to Forbes when it's spending thousands for an attorney who refuses to provide clarity on simple requests such as this one. We spent months fighting to raise the salaries to new minimums of $57,500 and $62,400 (management originally insisted they should remain flat at $50,000), and these raises should be made immediately—as management signaled more than six weeks ago. We will continue to press for more clarity on this issue and will update affected members as soon as we can.
Next up, we moved on to discuss a new proposal surrounding access to reproductive health services. Management brought forth this proposal in between sessions, seeking to modify our health insurance plans, retroactively to July 1, in order to cover travel expenses for healthcare services not available within 100 miles of an employee's home address (up to $4,000 per year and $100 per night on lodging for two people). Such services include abortion, gender-affirming care and in-patient mental health services.
We’re glad management brought this proposal forth but also felt it necessary to include contract language protecting employee privacy and enhancing the benefit. Among other things, we drafted a counter stipulating that employees using more than three consecutive sick days should not be forced to include a diagnosis or treatment type as documentation, ensuring related documents are kept strictly confidential and doubling the per-night lodging maximum to $200 (or $100 each for patient and companion).
Unfortunately, management dismissed the concerns and refused to agree to these provisions. Instead, Forbes came back to us with a counterproposal providing no extra protections. We agreed to it in order to ensure these benefits are available as soon as possible but are also incredibly disappointed that management rebuffed our requests to protect employee privacy. It’s important to note this is the same dismissive tone we’ve been met with when it comes to other crucial issues like pay equity and diversity and inclusion. As with those issues, we made it clear we will fight to protect these rights in a separate proposal.
Lastly, we spent our final 15 minutes discussing the union’s counter for grievance and arbitration. We continue to believe supervisors should respond to employee grievances in a timely manner, whereas management insists grievances can simply be ignored and rejected. That’s a sticking point. However, we are eager to work with management to come to an agreement, so we adjusted some time frames regarding the process of hearing and resolving grievances to hopefully meet in the middle.
We’ll be back at it in another bargaining session on Friday, October 21 at 10 a.m. ET. Quick shout out to unit rep Anthony Napoli, lawyer Thomas Lamadrid and the 30 or so observers who attended our latest session. Your support is crucial in moving this along as expeditiously as possible. We’ll see you at the next one.
Have any questions about the proposals? 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.
In solidarity, your bargaining committee:
Merrilee Barton
Katie Jennings
Alex Konrad
Andrea Murphy
Jon Ponciano
Shop Paper #5: Editorial Integrity and More
August 25, 2022
Hello Shop F!
Setting a record for our most consistent string of bargaining dates yet, we were back at the bargaining table for the third time in 6 weeks on Thursday, August 25th. Cheers to our bargaining committee, unit rep Anthony Napoli, lawyer Thomas Lamadrid and all the observers who attended the three-hour session.
We kicked off the session by asking to further our discussion from the previous session on our editorial integrity proposal. Forbes counsel seemed to have forgotten that this was the very first proposal we presented back in March, and was confused that we weren’t going to waste time by formally presenting it again. Once it was settled that we had given them our editorial proposal and management didn’t need us to present again, Forbes counsel Patrick Collins asked his go-to question, “What problem are you trying to solve here and why do you want it in a CBA?”
We explained that there have been many instances where the newsroom at Forbes has been pushed or pressured by the business side of the company. (Most of the members of our shop will be able to come up with a few examples of this with little effort.) For us, the purpose of this proposal is to ensure there is well defended and codified protection of editorial products and that we are enshrining best practices in the contract. Management asked for examples of sponsors interfering with editorial content. Bargaining committee members Jonathan Ponciano and Alex Konrad spoke about a number of issues: lists where sponsors were fielding pitches from reporters about content, list editors being pressured to include a sponsor on the list, sponsors placing people on a conference panel without disclosing the relationship, including affiliate links to articles after publication, and selling list members the rights to rewrite their biography.
Management did ask questions throughout, looking for clarification and details on our examples. After being silent for the past two meetings, Managing Editor Joyce Bautista Ferrari and Human Resources Vice President Ali Intres participated in the discussion. In fact, the meeting felt most productive when they were involved. Management indicated that while they don’t disagree on the principles in our proposal, they do have concerns about addressing editorial integrity in the contract. They don’t want to arbitrate over this issue.
This is where we disagree. Editorial integrity is an appropriate topic to include in a CBA to ensure that members are independent from the business side of the company and can push back when pressure is applied. As you all will remember, this was something we tackled as a union as recently as February with the launch of the Premium Profile product. We succeeded in getting assurances from Randall Lane and Mike Federle that “editorial integrity is absolute.” But this issue could have been avoided with a clear and transparent policy about editorial integrity and journalistic ethics. As for the arbitration question, the editorial integrity committee that is part of our proposal would address the majority of these issues long before they ever reached arbitration.
The discussion over editorial integrity went on for about 90 minutes. We then turned to counter proposals from both sides. We discussed our counter proposals on bulletin boards and non discrimination. The non discrimation proposal from Forbes had a sentence that would have prohibited members from “solicitation of employees for Union membership or dues on Company time.” We pushed back strongly on this. The company cannot interfere in the operation of the Guild and telling our members when we can speak to someone is interference.
Management sent over three counter proposals: Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Belonging, Access to Content, and Grievance and Arbitration. Forbes’ DEIB proposal was very disappointing and didn’t demonstrate any real commitment to making Forbes a more diverse or equitable workplace. Forbes proposed forming a committee with two members from the union and two from management that would meet quarterly and propose at least two initiatives to management annually. The proposal contained no benchmarks or goals, and nothing that would hold the company accountable.
We don’t have another bargaining session on the books yet but hope to have dates to share in the next few days.
Get Involved: We are looking for new people to join the bargaining committee. Contact Andrea Murphy: andreadmurphy@gmail.com to learn more.
In solidarity, your bargaining committee:
Merrilee Barton
Katie Jennings
Alex Konrad
Andrea Murphy
Jon Ponciano
Shop Paper #4: Last week's bargaining session and management's first counter proposals
August 9, 2022
Hi Shop F!
Two weeks after our previous session, we were back at the bargaining table on Tuesday, August 9, for a three-hour meeting with management that yielded some progress in a couple of our first proposals.
Before jumping into that, however, we received a response to our questions last session about the hiring freeze imposed last month, and felt it important to share. Though members from across the newsroom were told of a hiring freeze throughout July, management refused to acknowledge it. Instead, management sent a statement claiming “there is no hiring freeze” and that Forbes is actively hiring. There’s one thing we know for sure: Many of our unit members have tirelessly taken on the roles and responsibilities of departed colleagues with no additional compensation, no respite from their existing duties, and no new hires on their teams. And a quick search of the Forbes Careers page shows the jobs listed (whether they are on hold or not), do not track with the number of open roles we know to exist in the newsroom from the amount of turnover we’ve seen across teams in recent months. We expected management to respect and understand the importance and urgency in these questions given how chronic understaffing affects our unit members, so it’s disappointing to see the lack of transparency even as we attempt to build a productive relationship.
On to the session: After waiting 15 minutes for Forbes counsel Patrick Collins, who showed up late, we kicked things off by asking to see counters to any of the 29 proposals we sent management back in March and June. Collins deflected the question, as he would go on to do several times, and instead requested we discuss our grievance and arbitration proposal. We obliged.
Management insisted the timeframes we've proposed to investigate unit member grievances are "very long" and spent a disappointingly unproductive amount of time pondering the technical definition of working days. Management ultimately said it would likely propose 5 to 10 calendar days (versus our window of 60 working days) for grievances that do not involve employee discharge and also said it would propose a smaller joint committee to handle arbitration. It's critical that employee grievances are heard and addressed properly, so we will fight for a contract that does just that. In the meantime, we look forward to management’s counter proposal.
After spending 30 minutes discussing the grievances proposal, we asked to see any counters, but were—again—shut down. Instead, management decided to voice its opposition to our byline proposal, which stipulates that unit members have the right to remove their byline from a piece if they protest its use. Upon being asked why we would propose this, committee members explained three reasons why reporters may want to withdraw their byline—surrounding editorial integrity, worker safety, and in the rarest of cases, editing that does not accurately or fairly reflect one’s reporting. This conversation clearly demonstrated that Collins lacks a basic, foundational understanding of the media industry and its workers, and it’s unfortunate to see his lack of preparation as the clock ticks down on the limited time we have to negotiate.
After the back-and-forth, we asked if we could see counter proposals for a third time—to which management replied it wasn’t sure why we would expect counters and then asked to discuss yet another proposal that’s been on the table for five months. At this point, we shut down the request. We presented our first proposals in March and had yet to see a single counter. This deflection is a tactic designed to allow Forbes to control the table and the pace of bargaining, and at this point, we need to start actually exchanging counter proposals in order to bargain over the issues at hand. It took a frustrating amount of pushback, a rather heated exchange and a nearly 30-minute break for management to ultimately agree and come back with their first counters.
It’s important to note here that this deflective tone—which is not only incredibly unproductive but also simply tacking on to Forbes’ legal bill at a time when it’s refusing to backfill critical positions—is effectively endorsed by management when its internal committee members refuse to speak up during discussions. This is now the second session in which both Human Resources Vice President Ali Intres and Managing Editor Joyce Bautista Ferrari have remained silent for virtually the entirety of discussions—including on key issues such as diversity, equity and inclusion, employee privacy and the prohibition of non-disclosure agreements. As Forbes’ counsel mentioned during this session, an open dialogue will be crucial to move these negotiations along—especially if we wish to do so expeditiously, as CEO Mike Federle has mentioned—so we hope the silence from management will come to an end so we can better understand their reasoning on a real-time basis.
As for the counters, we received two of them (for access to personnel files and a union bulletin board), along with a separate proposal on non-discrimination. In its first counter, management suggested employees should be limited to viewing their personnel files once per year. We quickly caucused to find a compromise and ultimately settled with management on allowing employees to view their files twice a year. Disappointingly, however, management still refuses to facilitate physical or digital copies of these files for employees, which is something we plan to fight as we move this proposal forward.
We intentionally spent our July session discussing proposals we believe should lead to quick compromise because we are eager to reach tentative agreements as expeditiously as possible. We hope management begins to move this along as quickly as we are trying to do so and plan to work with them on their first counters. Thank you to our Guild representative Anthony Napoli and Guild counsel Thomas Lamadrid for their ongoing support, and shout out to the roughly 20 unit members who were able to join us this session.
Bargaining will resume again virtually on Thursday, August 25 at 1 p.m. ET (details forthcoming). We’ll see you there.
In the meantime, get involved: We are still looking for new people to join the bargaining committee. Contact Unit Chair Andrea Murphy: andreadmurphy@gmail.com to learn more.
Here’s a rundown of the proposals we discussed.
Grievance & Arbitration — Creates a system to facilitate grievances by Guild members and see that they are properly heard and addressed, by a third party if necessary.
Bulletin Board — The company shall provide a physical space for a bulletin board for union communications, as well as an electronic communications channel on the company intranet.
Bylines — If you don’t want your byline on a story, you can have it removed.
Access to Personnel File — This proposal provides employees the right to review their personnel file upon request, as well as place a response in the file to anything deemed adverse found within.
In solidarity, your bargaining committee:
Merrilee Barton
Katie Jennings
Alex Konrad
Andrea Murphy
Jon Ponciano
Shop Paper #3: Last week's bargaining session & more on our latest proposals
August 18, 2022
Hello there, Shop F!
On Thursday, after a lengthy six-week interval, we were able to sit down, virtually, with Forbes management and its counsel. Thanks to Guild rep Anthony Napoli and Guild counsel Thomas Lamadrid for their tireless support in another grueling but productive bargaining session. And a big shout out to the 20 or so unit members who were able to drop in and join us throughout the day; your presence is critical in moving this campaign forward.
The session, which ran for about 3 hours, kicked off with Andrea Murphy asking management about Forbes’ current hiring freeze. The bargaining committee wished to know how long the freeze would last, whether it extended beyond the newsroom, and how it could be reconciled with departures and open roles across the news organization. Forbes counsel Patrick Collins immediately went on the offensive, objecting to the questions and the manner they were raised, and refusing to make Ali Intres or Joyce Bautista Ferrari available to answer the questions. The committee painstakingly explained that these questions are of high importance to the unit and have not been answered by other means of communications, including when Joyce was approached for an informal meeting and rebuffed such a request.
Contradicting his previous position in the last session, Collins intimated that such a request would be more appropriate for informal, cooperative meetings to be bargained over (which the Unit has proposed, and to which he has not agreed). When it was noted that such meetings would be welcome, but are not yet agreed upon, Collins took a diversion to claim, incredibly, that he lacked clarity on who spoke on behalf of the unit. Such distractions aside, he eventually made clear management’s position that such questions must be put into writing and sent through him, dragging the bargaining process down and making it far more expensive for his client. This set a tone for the whole session as Ali and Joyce only spoke up on the Zoom in several post-break moments. (They never unmuted otherwise.)
To be clear: while Collins would often become reactive throughout the session, this isn’t a Forbes’ counsel problem. It’s a Forbes management issue. Company counsel acts on the behest of their client, not the other way around.
The bargaining committee moved on to address 6 of the non-economic proposals sent to management and counsel, starting with Access to Content. Collins asked basic questions that reinforced his lack of any knowledge base about media operations – another reason we’ve been asking to have editorial representatives at the bargaining table. But several proposals, including Access to Content and a Social Media policy, were met with little meaningful pushback. Another, Access to Personnel Files, led to some concerns voiced by management about administrative burden that will require more negotiation, but wasn’t resisted in principle. Similarly with Privacy, Collins grandstanded about unlikely scenarios in which privacy would be bad, but ultimately didn’t have substantive points of disagreement.
The negotiation was more drawn out on the proposal on Prohibition on NDAs. We made it clear, through various arguments, that the unit considers this a key safety issue. Collins, in response, made it clear that he believes the #MeToo movement meaningfully started and ended with Harvey Weinstein. Collins said Forbes would return with a counter-proposal based on various state laws, but opposed a ban.
Again, Forbes management was silent on this deeply important issue.
Next was Just Cause, an important proposal for the unit. Collins argued against the notion of progressive discipline and several protections for terminated employees. Forbes said it would return with a counter-proposal, and Collins said the definition of Just Cause would need to be revisited.
After going through these new proposals, a previous proposal on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion was revisited. Management and the unit were able to find common ground on one major sticking point in that proposal, and Collins expressed optimism of resolution of the proposal.
As a final act, management emailed and provided the bargaining committee with its own first proposal, for Management Rights: Compensation. The committee and union representatives agreed to consider the proposal in more detail, and encouraged management to provide the other pieces of its Management Rights proposal group to be reviewed in context.
Bargaining will resume on Tuesday, August 9, again by Zoom. We continue to believe this is the best and safest option for members, and had strong turnout in support of the session by our unit observers. We encourage everyone to register and join us for the next session. We expect to start receiving counter-proposals and more proposals from management soon, and will also be moving into economics-focused proposals moving forward, as the bargaining committee has now presented and discussed all our non-economic proposals at this time (subject to change).
Get Involved: We are looking for new people to join the bargaining committee. Contact Andrea Murphy: andreadmurphy@gmail.com to learn more.
Cheat Sheet: Here’s a rundown of the 6 proposals we presented.
Access to Content: This proposal details that employees shall have access to the CMS while employed, and free access to their own published work for two years after the date of termination of their employment. It also ensures Forbes would provide advanced notice before the deletion of any such published content within such a two-year window, and provide a digital copy of such affected content to the employee upon request.
Access to Personnel File: This proposal provides employees the right to review their personnel file upon request, as well as place a response in the file to anything deemed adverse found within.
Prohibition on NDAs: This proposal ensures employees have the right to Guild representation in any related meetings. It bars the company from including in settlement agreements related to claims or allegations of unlawful harassment and/or discrimination any NDAs that would keep them silent about the claim. It would also release any current or former employees from such NDAs should they already exist.
Just Cause: This proposal holds Forbes to follow principles of progressive discipline with discharge as the most severe form. It requires that the Guild receive 48 hours’ advance notice of any discipline or discharge meeting and Guild presence there. It requires two weeks’ notice for any discharge, or commensurate pay should an employee be terminated sooner.
Privacy: This proposal protects employees from the company tracking them and reviewing personal data on company-provided devices, and from the company punishing employees for incidental personal use of such devices. It prevents the company from requiring employees to use personal devices for work, and from surveilling, searching or tracking such devices. It also protects employees from search of their personal email and social media accounts.
Social Media Accounts: This proposal ensures that the company has no claim over the intellectual property, contacts lists, usernames etc. of employee social media accounts, and that their use doesn’t constitute a trade secret or work made for hire. The company won’t direct employees to use their own accounts for any purpose, but if they do so voluntarily, the above doesn’t change. Company-operated or affiliated accounts and others to be agreed upon are excluded.
In solidarity, your bargaining committee:
Merrilee Barton
Katie Jennings
Alex Konrad
Andrea Murphy
Jon Ponciano
Shop Paper #2: Last week's bargaining session & more on our new proposals
June 10, 2022
Hi Shop F!
We were back at the bargaining table on Friday 6/10 for our second virtual session after a 3-month delay. Shout out to our bargaining committee, unit rep Anthony Napoli, lawyer Thomas Lamadrid and the 31 observers who attended the four-hour session.
We kicked off the session asking for feedback on the 15 proposals we presented at our first meeting in March but got off to a bit of a slow start on the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion proposal, where management started to go through it word-by-word, knocking some language without proposing alternatives. But things got better once we started discussing our proposed creation of a joint union-management diversity committee and got to hear from SVP of HR Ali Intres and Managing Editor Joyce Bautista-Ferrari about the company’s current initiatives, the challenges when it comes to voluntary collection of this data and where we might be able to find common ground. It’s clear that both sides agree Forbes needs to do better when it comes to recruiting and retaining staffers from underrepresented groups. We look forward to getting a counter proposal from management and want to put their commitments to DEI into meaningful, legally enforceable action.
Next we laid out our second tranche of 14 proposals (more details on what they entail below). This time we had some back-and-forth with management as we presented each proposal, which we thought was constructive and appreciated getting real-time feedback.
Then we asked management to agree to the next bargaining date, and this is where a vaccine requirement continues to be an issue. We are still living in a global pandemic, and we are not going to risk our health and safety by agreeing to management’s unreasonable terms. Management has proposed meeting at their lawyer's office, which doesn’t have a vaccine requirement. This doesn’t make any logical sense to us, since the Forbes office has a vaccine requirement. We’ve also offered our union office, which has a vaccine requirement. We are disappointed that vaccination remains a sticking point when public health officials recognize it to be one of the most important tools in combating the pandemic.
We continue to believe in the current environment that remote bargaining is the best and safest option for our members. We also believe that any bargaining sessions, regardless of whether they are remote or in-person, should have observers. After dragging their feet for three months, management finally agreed to this virtual bargaining session because we pushed them collectively with our actions—on Slack, social media and with our signed petition. We're going to need to keep up the collective action in order for us to win the contract we deserve.
To sum it all up: We thought this bargaining session was productive, we appreciated getting to hear from Ali and Joyce, who represented Forbes alongside Patrick Collins, outside counsel from Ogletree Deakins, and we look forward to continued discussions with management on the proposals we have put forward. We hope we will soon have a new date for our next bargaining session.
Get Involved: We are looking for new people to join the bargaining committee. Contact Andrea Murphy: andreadmurphy@gmail.com to learn more.
Cheat Sheet: Here’s a rundown of the 14 proposals we presented.
Vacations and Other Time Off — This proposal details time off, including vacation days (baseline of 15 days starting January 1 with the number increasing based on years of service), the holiday week between Christmas and New Year, 15 paid holidays plus 2 floating holidays, 5 personal days, 7 Summer Fridays and 3 volunteer days.
Sick Days and Disability Insurance — Employees will receive a bank of 20 paid sick days on January 1 for their illness or to care for a sick family member. The company will provide and pay full coverage for short-term disability benefits for 26 weeks and for life insurance.
Leaves of Absence — Employees may take 26 weeks of paid parental leave and 26 weeks of paid family leave. This also outlines sabbatical leave (8 weeks paid after 5 years of service) and Book/Creative Leave (paid up to 12 weeks). Other leaves include: Jury Duty, Voting Time, Military Leave, Bereavement Leave, Union Leave.
Severance — Employees shall receive 12 weeks pay for the first full year of service and one week's pay for each subsequent six months, along with fully paid medical coverage for the same length of time. Employees who are laid off out of seniority order shall receive enhanced severance.
Reduction In Force — The company will provide 30 days notice of any potential layoffs. The company will first ask for volunteers and then follow reverse seniority order.
Equipment & Expenses — The Company shall provide all equipment necessary for employees to complete their work, as well as cell phones, service and data plans. The company shall pre-pay for travel and lodging expenses above $50. Employees traveling for work shall receive $100 per diem for meals.
Travel Time — Travel time when an employee is on assignment shall be deemed working time.
Health, Safety, Return To Office — Establishes a joint management-union Health and Safety Committee. Employees will have the option to work remotely. A union-appointed health and safety expert will complete an analysis of the office before any employee is mandated to return. Also includes protections for doxxing and online harassment and establishes employees will not be required to cross picket lines.
Employee Training & Professional Development — Establishes new hire training, a peer-to-peer mentorship program and up to $5,000 for professional development courses.
Partnership Committee — Establishes a joint management-Guild committee to discuss business activities and other matters affecting Guild-represented employees.
Information To The Guild — Establishes types of information Forbes will provide to the Guild on a regular basis, including monthly reports outlining employees in unit, new hires and resignations.
Union Security — Employees have the right to organize and bargain collectively and there will be no interference with the operation of the Guild. Establishes procedure for how union dues are deducted from paychecks.
Bulletin Board — The company shall provide a physical space for a bulletin board for union communications, as well as an electronic communications channel on the company intranet.
Successorship — In the event of the sale of all or part of Forbes, the Guild shall be granted the right of first refusal, and shall be given access to financial information at the same time as other prospective bidders.
In solidarity, your bargaining committee:
Merrilee Barton
Katie Jennings
Alex Konrad
Andrea Murphy
Jon Ponciano
Forbes Union Shop Paper #1
March 15, 2022
Hi everyone!
We had an amazing turnout at our very first bargaining session on Tuesday 3/15. Shout out to our bargaining committee and the 47 observers who showed up with their Forbes Union Zoom backgrounds (We stan Malcolm the Cat). Forbes was represented by Ali Intres, Joyce Bautista-Ferrari and Patrick Collins, outside counsel from Ogletree Deakins. Management opened the session with a stalling tactic making every observer go around and introduce themself. But it quickly became clear this very expensive billable exercise for their lawyer only served to reinforce just how united we are with strong representation from every corner of the newsroom.
This was our first opportunity to present our position and we laid out our first 15 proposals (more details on what they entail below). That all went pretty smoothly and management said they would need time to digest and come back to us with questions.
Then we asked management to set the next bargaining date and that’s when things got a little heated. We are disappointed that management seemed insistent that the next bargaining session be in-person, even though the entire company has been working remotely without issue for the past two years. We raised what we consider very reasonable concerns: we are worried about health and safety issues (still being in a global pandemic) and multiple of our bargaining committee members also live outside the tri-state area. We believe the bargaining process should be inclusive, not exclusive, and definitely not limited to just those employees who live within commuting distance of Jersey City.
Reading between the lines, it’s pretty clear this protracted opposition to scheduling a meeting was really about management’s opposition to observers. And we know the more observers there are and the more democratic the collective bargaining process is, the bigger contract wins we will secure. Also, no matter where management says they want bargaining to take place, remember that the NLRB has ruled return-to-office a mandatory issue to bargain over.
While the next bargaining session date remains TBD, the good news is we do have a separate meeting now scheduled to discuss ongoing issues that management has failed to bargain over, which include: contested members, wage increases, promotions and (lack of) bonuses for certain employees. As a reminder, we filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the NLRB last month.
Get Involved: Inspired by this first bargaining session? Riled up after hearing management’s lawyer yell about ground rules for an hour? We are looking for new people to join the bargaining committee and for new shop stewards. Contact Andrea Murphy: andreadmurphy@gmail.com to learn more.
Cheat Sheet: Here’s a rundown of the 15 proposals we presented.
Editorial Integrity — Editorial staff will only report to editorial management and should be free from interference or influence from the business side of Forbes and any advertisers, investors, sponsors or shareholders. Employees can reject writing sponsored content without consequence.
Hours and Overtime — The workweek will be 35 hours and this proposal lays out the scenarios when employees will be paid time and half, double wages or comp time.
Diversity, Equity and Inclusion — Forbes will not discriminate and a Diversity Committee will meet quarterly to ensure accountability in recruiting and hiring people from underrepresented groups.
Remote Work — Defines remote, hybrid and onsite employees and establishes that employees must be given 120 work days notice if their designation changes. Plus, a stipend for work-related expenses.
Just Cause — Forbes shall follow the principles of progressive discipline and there shall be no discipline or discharge without just cause.
Grievance & Arbitration — Creates a system to facilitate grievances by Guild members and see that they are properly heard and addressed, by a third party if necessary.
Coverage & Jurisdiction — Full-time, regular part-time, intern, fellow and temporary editorial employees are represented by the Guild.
Temporary Employees — This ensures that temporary employees can’t be used to replace regular employees and defines the roles of academic interns, summer interns and fellows.
Confidentiality & Protection Of Sources — Employees can refuse to give up their confidential sources and Forbes will provide legal representation and pay your legal fees.
Bylines — If you don’t want your byline on a story, you can have it removed.
Prohibition on NDAs — Forbes can’t make you sign an NDA related to any harassment or discriminatory actions and all past NDAs regarding these issues are void.
Privacy — The company won’t surveil your non-work activities or geographically track you and is prohibited from searching your personal email, social or other accounts.
Social Media Accounts — The company cannot and does not own the channel or materials of your personal social media accounts.
Content Archive — Our published work should be archived in such a way that it is accessible to employees, including for a certain amount of time after they leave the company.
Access to Personnel File — You have the right to review your personnel file upon request.
In solidarity, your bargaining committee:
Merrilee Barton
Katie Jennings
Alex Konrad
Andrea Murphy
Jon Ponciano