Byline strike in St. Paul

I agree. This is the difference between TV news and print news. TV news is personality driven. People get to know and like/dislike reporters and anchors. Most readers couldn't tell you the name of who covers what beat for a local paper. With the exception of columnists, it's content driven.

 

Which gives the guild no leveraage and gives no incentive to join.

 

Unless you have no choice, which in many states, is the case.

 

Spoken like a naif who has never watched a talented colleague get axed

 

Yes, I have.

 

I the EIC doesnlt write the scathing Page 1 editorial, 90% of the readers never notice the byline strike.

A complete waste of time...on all sides.

 

Then why would you deny unionized workers their right to demonstrate dissatisfaction over a round of layoffs they believe was unfairly negotiated?

Hope you're not turning into some management suck-up on us, Xan.

No. 1, a strike is always a final, last-resort option, and No. 2, the workers own their bylines and get paid for the stories/photographs they supply under the bylines. They do their work, they should get paid.

There's not a lot newspaper workers can do in this climate so I don't know why it would bother you that they try to hold on to a little bit of their pride, dignity and integrity with a relatively small job action designed to demonstrate unity in opposition to unfair treatment.

 

I'm with the crowd who thinks that readers don't care about the bylines. Hell, I'm a (looking more and more like permanently) former journo, and when I pick up the paper, I'm not asking "hey, what did Jane Smith write today?", I'm asking about who won the game or what happened at the city council meeting. Outside of prominent columnists, more people care about the what than the who. Which, if you get right down to it, is how it should be.


,

 

I am technically considered management here, but I'm just your average worker bee.

If you are so angry over the injustice you perceive took place during negotiatons, then go balls to the wall and make your point. Keeping your name off stories, photos, graphics, etc., isn't a resort. It's a passive-aggressive behavior, and no war in the history of the world has been won with passive-aggressive behavior.

Now, I could be totally wrong. Maybe management gets increasingly embarrassed by all these "Staff report" bylines and nameless photos and concedes some of what it took away. Somehow I doubt it, though. Management will only become increasingly furious, and I think that's when some nastiness enters the equation and more heads (read: jobs) are axed.

 

It's not "passive-aggressive" behavior; it's just an initial, low-level demonstration of displeasure that happens to be protected under their contract. You don't go "balls to the wall" over something like this. It would be wildly overreacting to walk out over an issue like this.

Management (at good newspapers that hire talented people, anyway) does care about bylines, especially on stories written by its better writers and photographers. Smart publishers and managers also take note of things like sinking morale and what effect that might have on the product. And anyone who's afraid to take part in a simple little job action because he's worried management will fire more workers in retaliation is probably a wuss to begin with.

With all of that said, byline strikes aren't typically that effective beyond sending a signal to management that you're collectively pissed off about something. In this case, however, it will be worthwhile if the paper gives more consideration to the way it handles similar problems in the future.

 

Which probably pays more these days

 

Nope. Minimum wage, which is still less than a newspaper gig.