As we are seeing at the Pantagraph, employers will often say and do absolutely anything to prevent their own employees from having a voice on the job. Often, management is working from a script—provided by ‘union avoidance’ law firms hired by the company—while adding enough of a personal touch to attempt to persuade individual workers. While many workers have expressed their dissatisfaction with Lee Enterprises and the current publisher, most I’ve talked with have a great deal of respect for their immediate supervisors. Particularly in the newsroom, I’ve been hearing that various managers have been working long hours to compensate for the understaffing and poor morale resulting from questionable decision making at the top. Because supervisors are excluded from the protections provided by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), they are often forced to assist in the company’s anti-union campaign.
Being forced by your employer to stop union activity by your employees-not a good situation for anyone-except top corporate executives and the lawyers who can sit back and collect fees. Each department head sent out a personalized letter in June (I’ll post the letters next so you can look for commonalities). On the surface these letters may appear to be a sincere request among colleagues-but if you compare the three you will probably pick up on a pattern. Since then, has your boss (or your boss’ boss) taken a few minutes to chat with you and listen to your thoughts and suggestions? It might be interesting to compare notes with your coworkers—these seemingly casual conversations may actually be quite systematic and eerily similar.
There are occasions when companies use tactics that are of questionable legality or so unpleasant that the corporation is not willing to risk bringing it out in the open. In these cases, it is common for management to begin a “whisper campaign”. These campaigns are effective because they play on the fears and uncertainties already prevalent in the workforce, and since the source can not be traced, it is difficult to discover the truth. One such whisper which I’ve been advised of is a rumor that if there is a union election at the paper, there will be repercussions for Editor Mark Pickering. I sincerely hope that this rumor is incorrect, and that Lee would not dare be so shortsighted and callous an employer. To make a scapegoat of any of the dedicated employees that produce this newspaper would be a shameful injustice.
Let’s be honest. Without a contract, any employee can be fired at will. There isn’t any need to threaten anyone’s job. Lee should step back from the overt and covert anti-union attacks and allow employees at the Pantagraph to make an informed decision.
3 comments ↓
Text of Loretta Vance letter to advertising employees
June 25, 2007
“I hope you are as enthused about the recent changes as I am. The new team structure and commission program should serve us well, as we work to achieve our goals. I think under this plan you will make good money, as well as bring more business to The Pantagraph. I think this new system is going to be a win win situation.
On another note, we all know that very recently there has been union activity by St. Louis organizers at The Pantagraph. As the Ad Director, I want you to know where I stand on this issue. I am totally opposed to the idea that a union would represent the employees in the Advertising Department. To me, that would be an oxymoron. This department is designed to reward individual effort. From what I know of union, they are opposed to rewarding great individual effort. I do not believe that a union would add anything positive to what we are trying to accomplish in this department. Unions work hard to have everybody paid the same, regardless of the quality of their individual effort. That makes no sense in the advertising environment.
Thank you in advance for the good work I know you will do under the new plan.”
Text of Mark Pickering letter to newsroom employees
June 25, 2007
“I have worked at the Pantagraph for more than 25 years. I started as a reporter and have held various management titles in our newsroom. During all that time, we have been colleagues, working together to put out the best newspaper we can every day. Since I was named Editor a year ago this month, we’ve made a lot of positive, productive changes and we’re going to do more to make this a better newsroom for everyone. I need your help to make that happen.
Recently, there has been union activity by outsiders from St. Louis at the Pantagraph. As Editor, I want you to know where I stand on this issue. Simply put, I am strongly opposed to a union coming into this department. I do not think a union will have anything positive to add to the exciting new course we are charting for this department.
Already, some newsroom managers have told me they think walls are going up to interrupt communication among us. To achieve what we want as a newsroom – as colleagues – that cannot take place. You know what I am saying has validity. I am asking you to think about this and tell the organizers to go back to St. Louis.”
Text of Dan O’Brien’s letter to operations employees
“I want to thank you for all the hard work you do for The Pantagraph. You are a valuable part of our team here. In the recent past, we have made great improvements in the department. Wages have been upgraded and benefits have been extended. We have a really positive thing going in this department.
Very recently, I understand there have been attempts by a St. Louis union to organize some or all of our employees at The Pantagraph. I wanted you to hear from me first hand how I feel about that. I am opposed to a union representing our employees in our Packaging Department. We wouldn’t have open communication, concerns would take longer to address, and individual achievement would not be recognized. We don’t need a third party between us.
We have long had an open door policy at The Pantagraph. If you have any concerns, please feel free to come see me at any time.”
Leave a Comment