The New York Times is facing its first major work stoppage since the 1970s after employees demanding better pay and benefits declared a 24-hour strike.
The company said it was disappointed with the decision but ready to serve readers “non-stop”.
The standoff comes at a time of heightened labor unrest in the US as the cost of living continues to rise.
Union members say the company can afford their demands despite challenges in the broader news business.
“We’re incredibly fortunate to work for one of the few places in media or print that is profitable, healthy profitable,” said sportscaster Kevin Draper. “And yet management’s proposals are little better than what we got last time.”
More than 1,100 union members plan to take part in the December 8 strike, including big names like film critic AO Scott.
At the end of 2021, the New York Times employed around 5,000 people, more than 2,000 of them in the journalistic field.
The union said it would leave some departments almost empty – although some units will be less affected.
International workers, for example, are not part of the union, meaning coverage of the World Cup, which dominates sports news, is unaffected, Mr Draper said.
The last deal was negotiated in 2017, when The New York Times was still finding its way through the upheaval sparked by the rise of tech giants like Google, which have been siphoning advertising dollars from traditional news.
Since then, the company has successfully moved away from advertising, relying mostly on paid subscriptions. A recent update for investors said sales are expected to continue growing and predicted a strong year.
Union members represented by the NewsGuild of New York said the company’s performance — and its ability to spend millions on board compensation, share buybacks and dividends — influenced their demands.
Since the previous contract expired in March 2021, the two sides have been at odds over issues such as starting salary, wage increases, pension and healthcare policies, and remote work.
In recent negotiations, including a 12-hour meeting Tuesday, the company agreed to bigger pay rises than previously offered — including guaranteed 3% increases in 2023 and 2024 — and dropped a proposal to scrap pensions, among other things.
“Our proposals today demonstrate our good efforts to get things moving at the negotiating table,” Cliff Levy, deputy editor-in-chief, wrote in an email to staff on Tuesday. “We’re excited for the NewsGuild to join us in finding common ground and making meaningful advances.”
The proposal did not satisfy the union, which represents around 1,400 people, including comment moderators, security guards and reporters.
It said it was pushing to secure a starting salary of $65,000 (£53,000) and pay rises of 5.5% in 2023 and 2024, noting the company’s proposals had not offset the rising cost of living.
“My rent went up 8% last year,” said editor-in-chief Andrea Zagata. “I guess my question is, what’s in a 2.8% increase for me, especially when the company is spending so much on board pay, stock buybacks, and dividends?”
The New York Times’ action comes after a wave of unions across the media industry grappling with years of job losses, welfare erosion and meager wages.
About 6,500 media workers have become union members in the past five years, said Jon Schleuss, President of the NewsGuild-CWA. Workers at two smaller newspapers, the Fort Worth Star Telegram and the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, are currently in the midst of multi-week strikes.
Meanwhile, many businesses that still rely on advertising are struggling with declines that are expected to worsen as the economy slows.
Companies including newspaper owner Gannett, broadcaster CNN and online outlet Buzzfeed have all announced plans to cut hundreds of jobs in recent weeks.
Mr. Schleuss said he was confident that the New York Times’ relatively strong financial position gave its employees a good chance of concessions.
“The New York Times in particular can pay whatever the workers at the negotiating table ask for,” he said.
Add Comment