There are many things to say about the layoffs at the Winnipeg Free Press yesterday. I recommend you read Melissa Martin's personal thoughts on the matter (stay tuned for more from her) as well as Adam Wazny's. Also read John Dobbin. I have a few things to say of my own.
I understand the realities of the business, at least from a high level. It's no secret that the newspaper industry is struggling both to retain it's traditional readership, as well as in finding ways to capture revenue from the growing on-line readership. This challenge is illustrated in a now-ironic tweet last week from John White:
John White of course being one of those let go yesterday.
If the future of the industry is on-line, then the Free Press shot itself in the foot yesterday when it got rid of John as well as Lindsey Wiebe, their social media guru, and a web developer. They also let go of some of their younger and more promising journalists and writers including the aforementioned Melissa, a talented writer whose expressive writing sometimes seemed more appropriate for a glossy magazine than a black and white paper.
Why would the Free Press choose these people of all people? Well, they didn't. That's the short answer. They chose to lay off people from certain job classifications, but at that point the victims were defined by the union agreement that stipulates that the least senior must go first. I would say that seniority is an out-dated concept, but that implies that there was a time when it made sense. I'm not sure there was.
I give Aldo Santin, local president of the jouranlists' union (Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada), cudos for spending half an hour on
Winnipeg Internet Pundits today to talk about the layoffs. He was questioned on the aspect of seniority, and he was adamant in his support of it. It's so ingrained in the union psyche that it's simply not up for debate. It should be.
Seniority provides a simple and unequivocal method of choosing winners and losers in a union environment. Some may perceive this as fairness because it's black and white. There is no personal judgement involved. It values longevity above all else.
This is terribly misguided, especially for a business that is in transition, but really for
any business. Seniority is a poor proxy for quality of work. Years of service do not necessarily correspond to talent. Fair is not laying off those who are newest, but retaining those who add most to the organization, and have the greatest potential to lead the organization into the future.
From the business' point of view, the Free Press in this case, their potential for future success has been harmed as a result of this policy. This could have been an opportunity for renewal, in a way. They could have shed some high-paid old-timers, and retained the lower paid (presumably .. I don't know their salaries) staff with the fresh approaches to journalism. This cycle is good for a business. Instead the Freep got older and more stale, and has a higher average labour cost than before.
I'm not clear on why journalists and associated media workers need to be unionized to begin with. Santin spoke about how the union protects the workers, but tell that to the workers who got laid off yesterday. Unions don't prevent people from losing their jobs; they just ensure that job loses are not based on merit. They also add a burden to companies that need to be flexible in order to survive in an environment of dropping revenues.
I don't want to speak for the employees of the Free Press -- perhaps some or most of them appreciate being in the CEP -- but I feel it's damaging to the business; and I personally, as a reader of the Free Press, am not pleased with what transpired yesterday.