We know our rights — and we are asking management to respect them
KNOW YOUR RIGHTS
This week, in mandatory staff meetings, our managers raised five points that we believe are misleading regarding:
The notion that a union will hurt our budget
The futility of advocating for improvements to our working conditions
The right to show support for unions in our workplace
Our position on whether contract workers should have been included in the bargaining unit for the Oct. 30 vote
And questions about strikes.
As the Oct. 30 vote nears, below is some additional information that will help to clarify this misinformation.
SLICING THE PIE
We often hear from management that “the budget is a fixed pie and as one slice gets bigger, another has to get smaller.” The implication here is that if the company pays a fair salary, compensates for overtime, raises mileage rates, pays reasonable maternity leave, and guarantees a severance, it will lead to newsroom cutbacks that will affect our local coverage. We do not have any reason to believe this is a zero sum equation. McClatchy spends at least $420,000 ($35,000 a month stipend) to entice our CEO to live in Sacramento. Since we started talking union, the company has found money that it previously claimed not to have. For example, it found money to pay Jones Day – who average $1,000 an hour – to pursue its anti-union campaign, when it could have avoided those costs and voluntarily recognized the union. It also found money to replace old computers, when it previously said it didn’t have the resources.
Until now, we have had to trust McClatchy about the decisions it is making, which impact all of our lives. We now think it’s time to trust but verify. To do that, we need the rights and protections which come with a union. During contract negotiations, if the company says it cannot afford to pay for something, we would gain access to information that we don’t have now. To verify company statements, it must open up the books, plans and cash flow ledgers to our accountants, who will analyze company claims so that we can act appropriately.
FUTILITY OF PUSHING FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Management has said, in violation of federal labor law, that there is no possible improvement to be made to our working conditions here in Miami. This is obviously false. Our collective intention is to work with management in accordance with the law to make our newsroom a place where we can stay and grow as respected professionals. We are not the Sacramento Bee and legally we are not limited by their contract or any other. We will make our contract what we, collectively, want it to be - and are able to achieve in bargaining.
See Southern Bakeries LLC case: https://www.nlrb.gov/cases-decisions/weekly-summaries-decisions/summary-nlrb-decisions-week-august-1-5-2016
RIGHT TO SHOW SUPPORT
In mandatory meetings, our managers have told us that not wearing a pro-union t-shirt makes it “easier to talk to you” and that by tweeting about our support for a union we had “broken a bargain.”
These comments seem designed to intimidate us from exercising our legal rights to publicly support our union. For many, the collective demonstration of support for the union has helped to bring together many people from different parts of our newsroom, and wearing a t-shirt, or displaying a poster is an outward expression of that positive experience. We trust management will understand this and respect our legal right to open expression without intimidation.
We have addressed a letter to management today, asking Miami Herald executive editor and publisher Aminda Marqués González to instruct all managers to refrain from using these kinds of coercive statements and pressure tactics.
Here’s the context: The law allows management to set rules for our workplace — but only if those rules align with federal law and apply equally to all non-work activities, union-related or not.
For example, if we are allowed to wear a Miami Dolphins T-shirt at work — and we are — we can wear a pro-union t-shirt. If we are allowed to tweet about the Miami Dolphins — and we are — we can tweet about the union. Management cannot discriminate against pro-union speech.
Separately, we have been told to take down pro-union posters from the outsides of our cubicles. These posters have been repeatedly taken down without our consent after our shifts have ended. This is illegal, since management allows us to display non-work materials on the outside of our cubicles.
Our request to management asks them to acknowledge our legal rights: a) We have the right to wear pro-union t-shirts to work, b) We have the right to tweet about our union, c) We have the right to put pro-union posters up on the outside of our cubicles.
In isolation, these infringements may seem small. But they are the tactics of a union-busting campaign — and federal law prohibits many of these things from happening. For many staffers, showing public support for our union has helped bring people from across the newsroom together. Wearing a t-shirt and displaying posters are outward expressions of that positive experience. If we allow the company to break the law now, it will continue to break the law after we win our election on Wednesday.
Here is what the National Labor Relations Board says about the rights of employees: “Restrictions on your efforts to communicate with co-workers cannot be discriminatory. For example, your employer cannot prohibit you from talking about the union during working time if it permits you to talk about other non-work-related matters during working time.” (Emphasis added.)
Case law shows that this rule applies not only to discussions at work but also to social media activity and workplace signage.
For instance, in Midwest Stock Exchange et al. v. the NLRB, a federal court found that the company could not make employees take pro-union signs down from office bulletin boards because it allowed non-union signs on those same bulletin boards.
“This instruction violated [the law] since it discriminated against Union notices only and did not apply to other non-work related material,” the NLRB found.
And in Oberthur Tech. of America Corp v. NLRB, a federal court found that the company could not stop workers from discussing the union in work areas because “discussions of all other topics — from ’[w]eddings [and] funerals’ to ‘football, basketball, [and] vacations’ -- were permitted in work areas.”
Furthermore, In Loparex LLC v. NLRB, a federal court found that a company can’t create new rules, even if they’re applied in a non-discriminatory manner, if the purpose is to target union speech. “Though it is undisputed that Loparex's new bulletin board policy was facially neutral and non-discriminatorily applied, an employer may violate the Act if its motivation for a new policy is its hostility toward pro-union activity.”
That means the company cannot respond to a union drive by asking everyone to take down all posters, work and non-work related, from the outside of their cubicles — as our managers have recently done at el Nuevo Herald, the Miami Herald and Miami.com.
These federal laws apply to the workers of el Nuevo Herald, the Miami Herald and Miami.com. Management should respect that.
EXCLUDING CONTRACT WORKERS FROM THE UNION
Management also alleged that during negotiations over who would be included in the bargaining unit, which were held between our lawyer and McClatchy’s lawyers from Jones Day on Oct. 15 in Miami, that we attempted to exclude contract workers or “cherry pick” from among them for inclusion in our union.
This is completely false. It is important to remember that the goal of this union is to improve our workplace for all of us — full and part time workers, contract workers, permatemps, freelancers or managers alike.
During the Oct. 15 negotiations, we fought to include everyone in the bargaining unit, including these temporary workers. In order to do this, we had to demonstrate that the work was regular, and that those individuals were not able to refuse work. But it was the company that resisted and, when we pushed back, McClatchy’s lawyers threatened a hearing on the issue, which would have delayed the election by weeks.
We chose not to risk further delay of the election, and relented. The NLRB board even advocated that five temps be allowed to vote “under contest,” meaning their votes would be set aside and we would negotiate over their inclusion post election. The union agreed. But again McClatchy refused, saying there was no legal basis for their inclusion. We remain committed to fighting for the rights and benefits of these “permatemps,” many of whom took these jobs after being laid off from the Herald.
Meanwhile, we continue to fight to include colleagues who McClatchy would exclude, including some columnists, producers and page editors.
POTENTIAL FOR A STRIKE
The right to strike is fundamental to every union and is protected by law. But as we have seen in the last few years, dozens of newsrooms have been able to achieve successful contracts without a strike. No journalist ever goes on strike lightly. We care about the communities that we serve, and it is our intention to avoid that at all costs. It is important to know the facts, however. No one will ever be forced to go on strike. Striking, along with every other decision our union makes, is a collective decision and the result of each individuals’ choice.