Oregon Media Insiders

OK, coupla things --

No way is that place's staffing at "the barest of bare bones." No. Way. Count the bylines. They have a shitload of people who write once a week, if that. Second, the buyouts at the O. are NOT gonna "flood the local market with print journalists." The folks taking the buyout will either be people looking to retire a few years early or people looking to start other careers in other fields. They won't be looking to string for WW, trust me. And as for the part-timer work ethic, I'll bet the full-timers work through lunch and go the extra mile, too. That's called being a pro. And if those people are smart, they'll keep doing that to convince their bosses to keep them on board.

You may be right that there is some dead weight among the columnists (although some of the writers have investigative and other duties that aren't reflected in your bylines measure), and certainly among the higher-level editors. My exposure to the dynamics in the newsroom is mainly in regard to the copy editors, editorial assistants, and clerks. These are the people scrambling to keep errors out of the paper under increasing time pressure due to the staffing issue. You really think people making $10 hour should go without a lunch break? No disrespect intended to the full-time staff - it just seems like the paper is increasingly operating under a two-tier pay structure, and the mix is shifting toward "part time" workers who really aren't. These folks are not paid or treated as salaried professionals as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act, and management's condoning and even encouraging off-the-clock work is a clear violation of state and federal wage and hour laws. I admire all of these people for their professional work ethic, but I'm not sure wholesale acquiescence is the best way to preserve the dignity of the profession and the quality of the product.

Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. Part-timers at the paper are paid the same hourly rate as full-timers if they have the same experience. There is not a different pay scale. Part-timers don't have the same benefits as full-timers but the pay is no different. And $10 an hour? Beginning clerks at the paper make more than that ... beginning pay for professionals is more than twice that. Plus most full-time professionals at the paper are paid at an hourly rate. They aren't salaried. Before passing yourself off as an expert on labor law try getting some facts first.

You're right, the $10/hour figure is a little outdated, and my part-time reference was based on the fact that they get paid for fewer hours than they work, and the discrepancy in benefits. I am, however, a labor and employment lawyer. To be exempt from overtime requirements, an employee has to be salaried and not hourly, among other requirements. So I guess your point is that the full-time employees who exceed 40 hours per week should be paid overtime. I agree.

Ha! I wish that beginning pay for professionals was more than $20 an hour, but I can't imagine earning that much in this industry, no matter how long and hard I work at it. It's hard to find employers that pay writers what they're worth, especially in newspapers.

If part-time employees at the Oregonian are working "off the clock," this is a serious labor law violation. (It also illustrates the necessity of strong unions.)

Working off the clock is illegal even if it is entirely unsolicited and "voluntary" on the part of the employee, especially when the employer knowingly allows it to happen (i.e., fosters a culture in which this is the expected norm).

I would urge anyone at the Oregonian who feels they are being taken advantage of in this way to contact the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries. You could be eligible for thousands of dollars in back pay and penalties.

Oh, yeah, absolutely. Because when your paper's making cuts and as a part-timer you're not covered by that bullshit "job security pledge," you absolutely want to start making labor complaints. In fact, what you really wanna do is FORM A UNION! That'll show the Newhouses and the Stickels just how committed you are! And do drop us all an e-mail from time to time to let us know how it all worked out. You'll certainly have the time -- those lines at the unemployment office are a bitch.

Good God, people.

If you file a BOLI complaint and your employer retaliates by firing you, that is an even more serious offense than the one that prompted the complaint. I think the Oregonian's ownership would know better than to do that. We're talking a potential six-figure fine here, in addition to back pay and penalties.

There is no good reason not to contact BOLI if you are being pressured to do unpaid work. If you won't do it for yourself, do it for your colleagues (present and future).

I don't mind working off the clock -- if it's for a story that is going to be a good clip.

I would imagine the same holds true in the O's newsroom.

At about this point, I hope those part/full-timers are pulling out those clips and shopping around.

Out of curiosity are there any local Native Oregonians working as reporters at the Big O?

I don't know, but I always heard it was hard to get in there.

Especially now, I guess. :)

The newsroom has loads of native Oregonians. Not to mention UO journalism grads.

Explains why the paper's so mediocre.

My understanding is that the Oregonian busted their union about 50 years ago, and that the job security pledge and other glass promises are designed to placate people who might otherwise have organized for an actual contract. The paper's management is fiercely anti-union, but aren't they all. They also require loyalty, in that if you go to work for a Pamplin paper, e.g., you're probably never coming back to the Oregonian if things don't work out for you over there.

That said, filing a claim with BOLI is one option, although it can't be done anonymously or by third-party report (although you can call and get information anonymously). Also, for some reason they don't go after penalties (only back pay), but that may be offset by not having to pay attorneys fees - probably depends. I think the statute of limitations on wage claims is two years. The buyout offer requires signing away your right to bring employment claims. Retaliation for filing a wage claim violates state law and FLSA, and retaliation for collective action violates the NLRA, but retaliation is really hard to prove and could take years to enforce.

So, it's a tough situation - it's generally preferable to have a job than a wage claim. For some employees, keeping their job there is just the best of bad options. But, the majority seem to really like their jobs - even though the corporate leadership has its problems, they love print journalism, take pride in the product, and respect their colleagues. Those draws are fading fast right now, as staffing is cut further, the promise of being offered full-time recedes out of view, and the quality of the product can't be maintained. For the time being, though, I have never succeeded in stimulating any interest in wage claims or unionization among my friends there, and even though I and they are strong believers in these rights, I've come around to doubting it's really in their best interest to try it.

I can see why some current part-time O employees might be hesitant to speak up about feeling coerced (by whatever means) into working unpaid hours. But if the O management is not carefully policing the hours worked by such employees, they are literally asking for a class-action lawsuit, especially if there are mass layoffs of part-timers in the future.

At the very least I would urge anyone at the O who now regularly works off the clock to print, copy and save any and all documentation of such work (e-mails, interoffice memos, story drafts, etc.). You may not want to "rock the boat" by making a complaint right now, and that's understandable. But you may feel very differently if the day comes when you are involuntarily unemployed.

Look, I can understand doing the occasional unpaid favor for a small family business or a bare-bones nonprofit. But not for a major corporation, and certainly not on a regular basis. If the O and its parent company are allowing or encouraging such a practice as a cost-cutting maneuver (and I suspect this is the case at many other papers as well), they really need to be taught a very expensive lesson.

But the O.'s not encouraging it. Newsrooms tend to attract dedicated people, who stay as long as necessary to get the job done. This isn't a case of coldblooded bosses working everyone to death, believe me. The idea of a class-action suit is laughable. The bosses tell people to take breaks, but they won't, because they'd rather work through lunch/come early/stay late than do a half-assed job. It's been that way at every paper I've ever worked at, at every media job I've ever had. Absolutely no one at the O. is coerced.

It doesn't matter if it's "encouraged" or "coerced" or not. Allowing hourly employees to do unpaid work is illegal, PERIOD. It's the employer's legal responsibility to ensure this doesn't happen. If an hourly employee keeps working past their scheduled quitting time, they must be paid for those hours, regardless of whether they were asked, or ordered, or otherwise encouraged to stay. Making sure those dedicated part-timers go home when they're scheduled to (and take breaks, lunches, etc. when they're supposed to) is part of a supervisor's job.

Apparently there is an unwritten rule at the O (and other papers) that no one leaves during "crunch" time. THAT'S FINE as long as everyone is being paid for staying late. If they aren't, the company MUST insist that they stop work. There's no middle ground on this issue where the law is concerned. The O should know this, and if they aren't scrupulously following this rule, they deserve what's surely coming to them.

And in the absence of specific information, D Parker (the former Pirate slugger?) assumes the Stickels and other top management are lining their pockets at the company's expense... sounds like an open mind to me...

Come on. Of course the Stickels are lining their pockets. The publisher of the Hillsboro Argus, a much smaller cog in the Advance machine, is on a month-long vacation to Africa and Europe. Who knows what memos he's missing.

Until the muckitymucks feel the pain in this crunch, nothing will be resolved. Nothing.

"Of course the Stickels are lining their pockets"... is this somebody just pissing and moaning without any facts (like one of the O's liberal editorial staff?) or is this something you know with even a smidgen of certainty?

I would think not, since you cannot "infer" anything to someone else. You might imply something by your words and another person would be at liberty to infer whatever they might from those words.

4. to hint; imply; suggest.
–verb (used without object)
Sounds about the same to me...But I'm not a fan of the Big O.

You have it backwards.

I infer.
You imply.
She implies.

So I am guessing the only people who post on this site now are bitter copy editors.

No. Just people who care about language. As any good reporter or editor should. Guess that wouldn't include you. Any implication that you're a boob would have to be you're own.

All I am saying is that if I want to read an English lesson I will pick up "Elements of Style."

I come here to see thoughtful responses to questions and topics and pointing out someone's grammar mistakes is simply boring.

But go on, call me a bad writer, editor, whatever, because I sneak a peek on here every now and then and don't like wasting my time reading someone trying to act superior.

But, if it makes you feel better, by all means...

I guess here at OMI we need to run our comments through copy editors now or our point is invalid.

So Mr Parker never meant to imply the Stickels were lining their pockets, just that in some cases, executives have. Sort of like saying "I'm not saying the Stickels are rapists, but look, they're men, and aren't all rapists men?"

While the greater number of rapists may be men, they are not the only ones by any measure. Women also rape.

Not that rape is anything to joke about but you didn't get the funny. Confirms my guess of a copy editor.

Getting back on topic here . . .
Who's likely to take the buyout? And what happens if the O. doesn't get enough takers? What happens if they do? Not that all the grammar bitching isn't just fascinating, but really . . .

Currently they need about 40 full-timers to take the deal. My guess is they'll get 80 or 90 applicants overall.

Management will decide how many each area (reporters, editors, photogs, designers, etc.) they can afford to lose. The cuts then will be made by seniority.

I wouldn't expect anyone with less than 15 years to qualify, given the rush toward the door by the old hands.

I started this little debate over labor issues somewhat inadvertently, so I'd like to refocus my remarks a bit. My concerns are both for the quality of a newspaper that I believe serves an important function in this community, and for the staff who make it happen (some of whom are very dear to me). Those interests probably converge at some points and diverge at other points. Here are a few possible outcomes from the buyout, not mutually exclusive:

1) There really is dead weight in the newsroom to the tune of 40 - 50 full-time bodies. Therefore, the buyout doesn't affect either the quality of the paper or the employment picture for the remaining employees. Is anyone really taking this position?

2.a) The reduction in staff affects the quantity of the output (fewer pages per edition, or fewer editions per week), but not the quality. In other words, a significant volume of the paper is not adding value for the public. I suppose this is debatable.

2.b) The reduction in staff affects the quality of the paper - e.g. labor-intensive investigative reporting is reduced, there's more reliance on the A.P. wire, copy editing becomes less rigorous. I think this also affects the morale and quality of life for all the people rightly taking pride in their work at the paper of record. Maybe the focus of the paper shifts toward a different format - e.g. focusing coverage on particular niches, or more of a tabloid format, for better or worse.

3) Quality is maintained on the backs of the remaining staff, who bust their asses a little bit more and/or have less to show for it. Yes, they are professionals who care about the paper, but this is where questions of law and fairness come into play. The laws on breaks, off-the-clock work, overtime etc., define exempt salaried professionals very specifically, and don't have exceptions for people who care about their work, love their jobs, or perform an important public service, or who make more than $10/hr. The law still applies to employers who don't coerce, abuse, or oppress people as we typically define those words. But that aside - from a fairness standpoint, how much is too much to ask? What's the hourly wage, quantum of job satisfaction, or measure of public necessity at which we ask people to set down their legal rights without complaint? And from a practical standpoint, at what point will asking the staff to absorb more cuts at some point affect the willing talent pool available, the commitment, and energy of the remaining staff, and consequently the quality of the paper?

So what's going to give way, now and in the future? What's the best-case scenario? I don't think there are easy answers, and I really wish the best for everyone faced with these difficult choices and circumstances. End of my musings here, I promise. Thanks for reading.

Sometimes it means people can freelance for the paper, as they don't have to pay benefits. But then if you are freelancing and the big O is your only client, you run into labor laws again. Especially if you are a former employee.

What I can say is that all you need to do is look down south at the Statesman Journal to see what happens to a paper that makes cuts in the newsroom. Much of the veteran talent there has left for greener pastures and in my opinion the paper has become little more than AP wire, meeting and crime and fire coverage.

Every now and then you get the "investigative" story, such as invasive species series or teacher's salaries, What I have found is that when cuts like these are made, the number of pages have already been reduced (due to lack of advertising). The key is matching the cuts in staff with the cuts in pages (advertising).

I love newspapers, and I really worry about where the industry is going. I really wonder if someday the paper will be a thing of the past, and we will all be writing for blogs like this one.

Well, enough late-night ramblings.

It's linked there.

-----
Lynn Siprelle * Fairy Blogmother

At least get the situation at the paper right. Buyouts, not layoffs. No one is being laid off. Try reading the paper. You might learn something.

Just 5 minutes ago I visited nytimes.com and I found articles about the Indians and the Braves. That leftist rag either doesn't find those names offensive or is too afraid of its competition to be PC on that topic. (I didn't use the word Redskins because I can understand how that could be offensive to some people.)

The mascot thing is just a convenient example of the Oregonian's arrogance. They used to be a monopoly. So they could be arrogant about a lot of things without it "mattering". Unfortunately for them, the Internet changed everything.

Phantom Gremlin

And where, pray tell, will the people who "want their news immediately" get it? This line of thinking ignores one very key fact about news consumership: The vast majority of news is still produced by the nation's traditional print media organizations. In fact, newspaper readership, taking both print and online readers together, has skyrocketed in the Internet age.

Newspapers remain very important and very relevant. The question as to whether newspapers will survive has not to do with whether the product is in demand (which it very clearly is) but whether the market will create a mechanism in which journalism is economically sustainable. The market's solution may be close at hand or far away — and that may indeed determine whether traditional newspapers such as The Oregonian survive — but don't fool yourself into thinking The O and other papers are irrelevant at this time. They're as relevant as ever — and given the ever-shrinking market, those papers that continue to churn out good journalism are more relevant than ever.

You nailed it, Matt. Nice post.