Deborah Zabarenko
Social media accord ends union dispute with TR
Tuesday 08 November 2011
A US union and Thomson Reuters have agreed on a social media policy that preserves employees’ rights to discuss wages, hours and working conditions on Facebook, Twitter and similar networks.
The Newspaper Guild of New York said on Monday: “Aside from guaranteeing our freedom to express ourselves about job conditions on these networks, the agreement also puts to rest the final dispute the Guild had with Thomson Reuters stemming from the company’s declaration of impasse in contract talks back in January 2010.”
The union had filed an unfair labour practice charge with the US National Labor Relations Board after environment correspondent Deborah Zabarenko, who chairs the union’s unit at Thomson Reuters, was reprimanded for a message she posted on a Reuters Twitter feed. The text of the message, in response to a management request for suggestions on how to make the company “the best place to work,” was: “One way to make this the best place to work is to deal honestly with Guild members.”
The Guild withdrew all other unfair labour practice charges as part of a contract settlement ratified in July. With the social media agreement, finalised on 20 October with an e-mail exchange between its president Bill O’Meara and Reuters Americas Editor Jim Gaines, the Guild has asked the NLRB to withdraw this final charge.
The new social media policy underscores rights workers have under the National Labor Relations Act to publicly discuss working conditions. However, it does not give Guild members a licence to make personal attacks against colleagues or managers, or against individual Thomson Reuters stories or products on social media.
It states: “Our wish is for people to benefit safely from social networks, not to muzzle anyone. Journalists are people too, with all the rights of citizens. If we want to tweet or post about a school play, a film or a favorite recipe, we are free to do so. When dealing with matters of public importance and actual or potential subjects of coverage, however, Reuters journalists should be mindful of the impact their publicly expressed opinions can have on their work and on Reuters. In our Twitter and Facebook profiles, for example, we should identify ourselves as Reuters journalists and declare that we speak for ourselves, not for Thomson Reuters.”
The policy adds: “When writing as Reuters journalists, whether for the file or online, we are guided 24 hours a day by the ethics of our organization as embodied in the Code of Conduct and the Trust Principles, which require us to be responsible, fair and impartial.”
“We expect our journalists to reach conclusions through reporting, but they must also demonstrate the intellectual discipline to keep their conclusions susceptible to further reporting, which requires a posture of open‐mindedness and enlightened skepticism. This is difficult to demonstrate in the social networks’ short forms and under the pressure of thinking‐writing‐posting in real time. But maintaining this posture is critical to our credibility and reputation as journalists. When in doubt about a post, tweet or other action on social networks, we must enlist a second pair of eyes, even at the cost of some delay.”
The policy specifically states that nothing in it should be interpreted as inhibiting the exchange of ideas about matters that deal with employees’ common welfare. Nor is there any prohibition on using social media for speech protected by the National Labor Relations Act, such as candidly discussing wages, hours and working conditions.
The tension is clear, says the company. “Social networks encourage fast, constant, brief communications; journalism calls for communication preceded by fact‐finding and thoughtful consideration.”
It adds: “At all costs, we must avoid flame wars, incendiary rhetoric and loose talk.”
● SOURCE The Newspaper Guild of New York | Thomson Reuters social media policy
The Newspaper Guild of New York said on Monday: “Aside from guaranteeing our freedom to express ourselves about job conditions on these networks, the agreement also puts to rest the final dispute the Guild had with Thomson Reuters stemming from the company’s declaration of impasse in contract talks back in January 2010.”
The union had filed an unfair labour practice charge with the US National Labor Relations Board after environment correspondent Deborah Zabarenko, who chairs the union’s unit at Thomson Reuters, was reprimanded for a message she posted on a Reuters Twitter feed. The text of the message, in response to a management request for suggestions on how to make the company “the best place to work,” was: “One way to make this the best place to work is to deal honestly with Guild members.”
The Guild withdrew all other unfair labour practice charges as part of a contract settlement ratified in July. With the social media agreement, finalised on 20 October with an e-mail exchange between its president Bill O’Meara and Reuters Americas Editor Jim Gaines, the Guild has asked the NLRB to withdraw this final charge.
The new social media policy underscores rights workers have under the National Labor Relations Act to publicly discuss working conditions. However, it does not give Guild members a licence to make personal attacks against colleagues or managers, or against individual Thomson Reuters stories or products on social media.
It states: “Our wish is for people to benefit safely from social networks, not to muzzle anyone. Journalists are people too, with all the rights of citizens. If we want to tweet or post about a school play, a film or a favorite recipe, we are free to do so. When dealing with matters of public importance and actual or potential subjects of coverage, however, Reuters journalists should be mindful of the impact their publicly expressed opinions can have on their work and on Reuters. In our Twitter and Facebook profiles, for example, we should identify ourselves as Reuters journalists and declare that we speak for ourselves, not for Thomson Reuters.”
The policy adds: “When writing as Reuters journalists, whether for the file or online, we are guided 24 hours a day by the ethics of our organization as embodied in the Code of Conduct and the Trust Principles, which require us to be responsible, fair and impartial.”
“We expect our journalists to reach conclusions through reporting, but they must also demonstrate the intellectual discipline to keep their conclusions susceptible to further reporting, which requires a posture of open‐mindedness and enlightened skepticism. This is difficult to demonstrate in the social networks’ short forms and under the pressure of thinking‐writing‐posting in real time. But maintaining this posture is critical to our credibility and reputation as journalists. When in doubt about a post, tweet or other action on social networks, we must enlist a second pair of eyes, even at the cost of some delay.”
The policy specifically states that nothing in it should be interpreted as inhibiting the exchange of ideas about matters that deal with employees’ common welfare. Nor is there any prohibition on using social media for speech protected by the National Labor Relations Act, such as candidly discussing wages, hours and working conditions.
The tension is clear, says the company. “Social networks encourage fast, constant, brief communications; journalism calls for communication preceded by fact‐finding and thoughtful consideration.”
It adds: “At all costs, we must avoid flame wars, incendiary rhetoric and loose talk.”
● SOURCE The Newspaper Guild of New York | Thomson Reuters social media policy
US labour panel to press Reuters over reaction to Twitter post
Thursday 07 April 2011
The board asserts that Reuters violated the reporter’s right to discuss working conditions when her supervisor reprimanded her for posting a message on Twitter saying, “One way to make this the best place to work is to deal honestly with Guild members”.
The author of the post, Deborah Zabarenko, environmental reporter in Washington and head of the Newspaper Guild of New York at Reuters, sent the tweet to a company Twitter address after a supervisor had invited employees to send postings about how to make Reuters the best place to work.
“The next day the bureau chief called me at home,” Zabarenko, pictured, told The New York Times. “He told me that Reuters had a policy that we were not supposed to say something that would damage the reputation of Reuters News or Thomson Reuters. I felt kind of threatened. I thought it was some kind of intimidation.”
A NLRB official confirmed the board’s Manhattan office had informed Thomson Reuters and the union of the planned complaint. The official also confirmed it involved an accusation that the company had violated a worker’s federally protected right to engage in concerted, protected activity with co-workers to improve working conditions.
The board usually warns parties before a formal complaint is filed, to encourage settlement of the dispute. If no settlement occurs an administrative law judge will hear the complaint.
A Thomson Reuters spokeswoman said the company was surprised by the board’s complaint because it did not believe Zabarenko had even been disciplined. She said the company’s social media guidelines were straightforward and like those at many other companies.
The Guild, which represents 420 Reuters employees, has been in contract talks with the company since before the old contract expired in January 2009.
Peter Szekely, the Guild’s secretary-treasurer, said “Management unilaterally implemented a policy that restricts the free speech of its employees, and for a news organisation that’s inappropriate.” He said the NLRB had told the union it planned to file additional charges against Thomson Reuters over a new pay plan and other issues.
● SOURCE The New York Times
