Organizing at
New York Times Television

Our Members Spearhead an Important Win

by Tris Carpenter, National Organizer

On December 4, the post production staff members at New York Times Television made Guild history when they voted to be represented by Local 700. In the face of incredible pressure from the employer to vote against the union, the Guild mounted the largest organizing campaign in recent history and brought home a major victory.

NYT-TV is a subsidiary of The New York Times and is primarily a producer for The Learning Channel and The National Geographic Channel, creating a number of weekly series including Trauma: Life in the ER, Code Blue, Maternity Ward and Science Times. The hospital shows

The post production staff faced down the union-busters for a major organizing victory in New York.

are very much in the documentary/reality vein: 250-300 hours of footage for two action-packed hour-long episodes.

The campaign to organize these shows started when some of our members who were working non-union at NYT approached Guild representative Norman Gay with complaints that the company was abusing its workers. Editors were working as independent contractors, even though they did not meet the IRS definition as such, and unemployment and workers compensation coverage were not being provided. While assistants were more likely to be on payroll, they were generally paid only about $550 per week. Everyone received a flat rate for one or two episodes without overtime (a clear violation of federal and New York state law) or weekend premiums. No employees received any health insurance or pension.

The company’s insistence upon paying a flat rate started the problem. Without overtime provisions, producers had little incentive to structure the work in a way that eliminated long hours and weekends. In one example described to me, an episode was ready for screening on a Tuesday. The producer waited until Thursday to watch the show, then handed the editor a stack of notes at 5:00 p.m. Friday, saying that she wanted the work completed by Monday morning.

It was clear to everyone that a Guild contract would go a long way toward improving the working lives of these professionals, so the employees began to organize from the inside. Those who were interested in making NYT a union shop started talking with their friends and co-workers. Complicated questions were referred to Guild staff. We held a few large meetings, but most of the discussion was employee-to-employee.

September 11 was a tragic day for our nation, and the NYT campaign was dramatically affected, too. In fact, two of NYT’s three locations are just north of Houston Street, about twenty blocks from the World Trade Center. Many employees watched the attacks from the sidewalk just outside the building that housed their cutting rooms. Our campaign was put on hold indefinitely.

But within a week, it became clear that the attacks had not shaken the employees’ resolve. The campaign resumed, and by two weeks after the attack, the Guild had received Authorization Cards from about 65 percent of the workforce. We had enough of a margin to begin the process of securing legal recognition of the union from the company.

We began slowly, by writing a letter to the company declaring our majority status and asking for “card check” verification and recognition. The company stated that it would recognize a union only after a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) election. We filed with the NLRB on October 1, and after intense negotiations between the NLRB, NYT and the Guild, the parties agreed to an election by mail. Ballots were to be sent out on November 13 and had to be received at the NLRB by the close of business on December 3. The vote count would be December 4.

By late October, the company’s anti-union campaign was in full swing. They had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on outside anti-union consultants and had created the first of many “captive audience” meetings. Employees are required to attend these meetings to hear the company rail against the union. So long as the company pays the employees for their time, these meetings are legally permissible. There is usually a presentation by a company official, and a Q&A session may or may not follow. Management almost categorically refuses to allow union staff representatives to attend. At NYT, executives used these meetings to misrepresent the Guild’s position on a host of issues. To their credit, a number of workers were courageous enough to stand up at these meetings, and they did a wonderful job of setting the record straight. Those who attended said that the meeting did more harm than good to management’s position.

NYT then decided that a change at the top was in order. Christian Gwinn, the president of NYT-TV, was replaced by Bill Abrams, a former executive from ABC. While anti-union consultants regularly advise companies to replace a supervisor who is perceived to be a problem, it is somewhat unusual to change the CEO. True to form, Abrams did what every new CEO does in the face of a union election: beg the voters “to give me a chance.” Just before the ballots were distributed, he sent a letter to employees, saying, “A year from now, if those of you who think a union is necessary today still feel that way, there is nothing to stop you from bringing back MPEG.”

Management’s “Vote No” campaign continued with another round of captive audience meetings. Supervisors and managers spent weeks quietly grilling individual workers. Both sides sent numerous mailings to voters’ homes. The most spectacular was a 20-page, four-color flyer from management, outlining alleged union corruption, misrepresenting IATSE contracts and positions, and generally trying to make the union the issue, rather than the company’s horrendous employment practices. The Guild countered with dozens of one-on-one meetings and phone calls, and we mailed copies of the Guild Magazine to all NYT employees.

The mail was somewhat slow around New York in late November, but over 100 ballots were delivered to the NLRB by the cutoff date. Eighty-seven votes were declared valid, and the final tally was a decisive victory for the Guild: 49 in favor of union representation (56%) to 38 against (44%).

The next step will be to negotiate a contract. New York Times Television has an opportunity to support the liberal reputation of its parent company and create conditions that will be a model for others in the reality/documentary genre to follow. It is my hope that we can build a positive relationship with them and negotiate an equitable contract that will give these professionals the pay and benefits they deserve. If the NYT-TV post production staff continues with the drive and focus they showed in the campaign, I’m sure we’ll do just fine.