January 29, 2008

Reuters-Thomson Alliance:

Consult Us on the Merger

Global Union Group Pushes Execs

The Reuters-Thomson Alliance – leaders of unions in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom that represent workers for the two companies – called on executives from Reuters and Thomson for substantive consultation before the merger goes through. In a January 23 letter to Tom Glocer, Devin Wenig and David Schlesinger of Reuters and Richard Harrington of Thomson, the Alliance made it clear that the vague e-mails and teleconferences held with staff so far just don’t cut it.

“As the recognized representatives of Thomson and Reuters’ employees, we would like immediate and proper consultation and negotiation about the deal with the members of the new executive committee of the combined company,” Alliance members, including Reuters Unit Chair Debby Zabarenko, wrote. “We feel unable to accept your arguments about not being able to consult with us ahead of completion of the deal due to regulatory confidentiality.”

Alliance members said they’d sign confidentiality agreements if that’s what the regulations require. They also stated firm opposition to layoffs after the deal is done.

The letter was strongly worded but the most important part of it may well be the united front reflected by the signatures at the bottom: Jeremy Dear, who heads the National Union of Journalists in the United Kingdom and Ireland, Linda Foley, president of The Newspaper Guild – Communications Workers of America, Myra MacDonald and Mike Roddy who lead the NUJ chapel at Reuters in London, Alan Burn, London-based senior workplace representative at UNITE in Reuters, Frank Prenesti and Philip Waller of the NUJ chapel at Thomson Financial in London, Kathy Viner, staff representative of the Canadian Media Guild and Bill O’Meara, Peter Szekely and Zabarenko of The Newspaper Guild of New York.

RESPONSE FROM SCHLESINGER

David Schlesinger, who will head the merged Editorial Department, offered a swift but unsatisfying response. “We are acutely aware that your members are looking for greater clarity regarding what the future holds after completion of the deal,” he wrote on January 24. “… Largely due to regulatory restrictions on the exchange of confidential information between Thomson and Reuters about their respective businesses, integration planning to date has not been sufficiently detailed to enable us to commence formal negotiations.”

He said basically what he has said in the past: managers are happy to talk with us, but they can’t tell us anything we need to know. Maybe in several weeks, Schlesinger wrote, they’ll be able to consult “fully in accordance with local consultation requirements” in the 30 or more countries “where we need to do so.”

That sounded very much like the managers of the new company plan to do the absolute legal minimum and not an ounce more. “Rejecting our offer to work cooperatively shows a lack of respect both for the two companies’ employees, who are understandably concerned about their future, and for their representatives,” said Szekely, secretary-treasurer of the New York Guild. “Doing no more than the legal minimum at a time like this isn’t good enough.”

Unhappy “Families”

Late last year, Reuters managers rolled out something called the “Job Family Review” in the form of a PowerPoint presentation. And it was about as clear as most PowerPoints, which is to say, not very. But for those who braved the fine print and the bureaucratese, this offered an ominous picture of a global realignment of jobs. Our union-represented colleagues in London were so alarmed that they called a strike vote over the issue, which they said could hurt senior, experienced workers, and that it showed a complete disregard for negotiated job rankings. Senior workers would be vulnerable because the new system moves many of them down to a lower “wage band.” If their salaries are above that wage band now, they stand to get no wage increases in the years ahead – an effective pay cut since it doesn’t let salaries keep pace with inflation.

Editor-in-Chief David Schlesinger wrote about this realignment on the “Reuters Daily Briefing.” He talked about the Global Role Framework, a three-year-old plan meant to “put some order in Editorial jobs.” Betty Wong added a note that this framework “isn’t reflected in the current contracts with the Guild but is an important principle for job movement.” When asked what she meant, Wong replied that it “formalizes possible career progressions.” Whatever. The key is to know that it can’t be applied to Guild-covered employees in RAM. The job classifications we negotiated with management are the ones that count for the duration of our contract. They’re on page 15.

Objectives or Quotas?

In 2007, Editorial top management set numerical targets for its managers to meet. These were targets for each desk, involving timings, “beats,” analyses and the like. For 2008, Editorial managers have received directions to set specific “objectives” for each reporter. For example, reporters on one desk have been given “objectives” of five “beats” and exclusives for the year, to maintain at least a 70 percent win rate on timings and top stories, to meet Reuters snap gap and accuracy standards and to write five “high-quality” analyses this year. “Objectives” also have been given to Technical Operations employees.

While this process is similar to what management has for years tacked onto the end of the annual appraisal process, it also may be stepping closer to setting production quotas, which don’t exist under our contact and would be subject to negotiation with the Guild.

The management directive makes no mention of disciplining individual staffers who fail to meet “objectives.” And it specifically rules out using the “objectives” to determine bonuses for Guild-covered employees. But, as with the appraisal process, there is always a chance that an errant individual manager could take those steps. If that happens, we need to call them on it.

The Guild advises members to take the same approach to “objective”- setting as it does to appraisals: don’t agree to ambitious goals that if not met could provide management with damning evidence that could be used against you – and don’t sign anything. While appraisals themselves are not supposed to be used as a basis for discipline, they may be used to bolster management arguments in disciplinary cases that are challenged by the Guild. That’s why we advise members not to take part in the process.

We are not saying you should refuse to participate in a discussion of personal goals – just respectfully decline to sign off on them, and cite the Guild for such action. The Guild does not oppose the concept of staffers and managers discussing personal performance objectives as an academic exercise. What we would oppose is management imposing output quotas and using the failure to meet those quotas as a basis for discipline.

# # # # # #