![[Freelance]](../gif/fl3H.png)
Observer and Guardian resist Tortoise threat
TOM DAVIES, now secretary at the Guardian and Observer chapel-branch, reported to the 14 October London Freelance branch meeting confirming the rumours and stories abounding in the media industry that yes, indeed, the Observer may be hived off to Tortoise Media - resulting in loss of jobs and is a significant threat to the livelihoods of members who are casuals or freelances at the Guardian and Observer. We discussed how the Branch can support journalists there.
Solidarity with striking journalists at the Guardian and Observer 04-05/12/24
Tom Davies
Tom began with the one positive slice of the sandwich that was his report to us: “Happily, the Guardian is one of the most unionised places in the industry, so there is a union culture into which you can slot – which I did... and here I am again.” Tom was LFB secretary from 2004 to 2014.”It's nice to be back talking to you about Guardian union matters, even though it's a tough thing to be talking about.”
The proposed Observer-Tortoise merger
We received early in September, in a rushed meeting for Observer staff and a mere “global email” around the building for everyone else, [the] formal communication of a story that a couple of outlets had already covered, Tom told us: that the Scott Trust plans to transfer the Observer out of Guardian News and Media (GNM) ownership to Tortoise Media, the long-form startup run by former Times editor and BBC director James Harding.
We were told that this was “an exciting development for The Observer,” with Tortoise promising to invest an extra 25 million into the paper over the next five years and new investors coming on.
But we still haven't been told who those investors are and what they might want for their stake, nor what their plans will be. “There are various bits of speculation, but still the identities of [these] investors [are not yet] confirmed.”
When chief executive Anna Bateson was asked for more details about the plans at a staff briefing, “we were told plenty of upbeat things about GNM's general financial performance. “She waved away questions about the detail of the deal, with an insistence that everything was at a very early stage, and it was too early to say about how everything would work.”
All the while and at the same time, James Harding has been going around saying that he wants and can get the whole deal done by December this year. The NUJ has serious questions about the corporate governance surrounding this proposal: “following the i paper reporting over the weekend before our meeting that the Harding and Bateson families had holidayed on a yacht together.
The alarm this caused among staff invited loads of questions such as: how many staff would transfer over, bearing in mind how integrated the two operations are [currently] between the Guardian, the Observer and the overall digital operation.
Key NUJ questions for the Observer-Tortoise Media merger
What would the transfer mean for the [regular] freelance given that so much of the Observer's output, particularly the feature side of the things, is provided by freelances?
What about terms and conditions in the future, given that GNM is probably the most strongly unionised national news outlet?
How far would the £25 million promised by Tortoise as extra investment go, given the lack of the sort of cross-subsidy and economies of scale that the Observer benefits from by being tied to a daily news operation like all Sunday newspapers now are?
Tom reported, following the two chapel meetings [held] since this announcement, that opposition to these plans is pretty much unanimous. “Our focus has been on stopping the deal.”
The chapel had voted to put the proposed Observer/ Tortoise transfer into dispute and to hold an indicative ballot for industrial action in the coming week. This opened on 17 October, with a week's deadline, as a step towards a full legal ballot, to be organised in consultation with NUJ head office, to ensure any ballot is a legally watertight industrial action ballot. Also to address the terms the ballot will be called on.
Tom said: “pending legal advice, we're hoping to ballot regular casuals in this indicative ballot so we can get an idea of freelance opposition.”
Questions around journalist members of the Scott Trust
Pennie Quinton, deputy editor of the Freelance, expressed puzzlement at the role of Scott Trust in the deal, asking whether the Observer is separate from the Scott Trust.
Tom responded: “It's a good question, because there's been quite a lot of pedantic dancing around about that. The Scott Trust acquired the Observer in 1993, so its management argued the Observer is not bound by the same kind of statutes and strictures as the Guardian so therefore they can do what they want with it.
“But that's something the union contests, given that at the time of the takeover Hugo Young, who was the chair of the board at the time, said that the Observer would have the same sort of protections that the Guardian has in terms of not being for sale, not being able to be kicked around. But the Scott [Trust] has been quite opaque about this, and that's a point of argument in terms of what the Scott Trust's obligations to the Observer are because they're basically now saying it's just something they can sell.”
LFB member Paddy French asked: do we know whether what they're proposing has been agreed unanimously?
Tom replied “I don't believe we do, no. There is staff representation on [the Scott Trust Board] - but obviously that's only one person and there's quite a lot of confidentiality clauses in terms of what can be reported back and what can't.
“Because the Scott Trust is a private company, it's not some kind of accountable trust or benevolent society. So, their meetings are private: we don't have a record as at this point. The identities of directors are known and some of them are quite famous, so there may be no harm in writing to them and asking them their positions.”
Paddy French noted that Haroon Siddique is on the board: “I think he's the Guardian's legal correspondent.”
Tom Davies said that Siddique “has relayed our opposition up the channel to the board. He hasn't reported back yet. But I know that generally the report-backs from Scott Trust meetings by staff representatives are quite hedged by the confidentiality stuff they impose on them. He has a vote, but he's one of many.”
Paddy French noticed that another one on the Scott Trust Board is David Olusoga: “I can't believe that either Haroon or David Olusoga would possibly be in favour of, well, throwing the Guardian or the Observer…”
Tom Davies: “I guess because it's a famous news outlet and it has famous people attached to it and writing for it, that's where some PR leverage can be used – and it is worth ordinary punters writing to someone like David Olusoga and saying, 'okay, what's your view on this?' All pressure can help.”
Guardian casual and freelance concerns
“I'm freelance, but also a casual for the Guardian and write quite regularly for the Observer. So, I'm very, very concerned about this and David Olusoga unfortunately appeared at a Tortoise event quite recently. The problem is that James Harding is very good mates with a lot of media folk.”
“It's not as simple as it seems that people are straightforwardly against this. One of the things that they're arguing is that the Observer isn't profitable and is damaging the Guardian, and it'd be better off having this investment so the Guardian could be left to be profitable without the Observer, which is a kind of fantasy. There's no reason to think that that would happen. [Or that] the Observer is somehow what's responsible for the Guardian making a loss.
“You can't really separate the Guardian and the Observer. The content is under the same banner online. There is no clear profit and loss balance sheet that the staff are aware of it's all combined, and all the contracts are ‘Guardian and Observer’. It basically means renegotiating everything. Everyone was completely taken aback by this because we all thought that the Guardian and the Observer were just one company.”
High-profile opposition to the Tortoise merger
Tom also reported on the opposition of several high-profile Observer writers and celebrities who signed an open letter to the Scott Trust opposing the sale.
Three of the Observer’s most recent former editors and a group of foreign correspondents had written to the Scott Trust separately to express their concerns.
The GNM Chapel has been liaising with Andy Smith, the NUJ’s Newspaper Organiser, and the NUJ legal team for advice on what this might mean for freelances in general.
Management will fail to divide and destroy
Tom invited anyone at the meeting “whoever works for the Guardian or does bits and bobs here and there, to please let us know so we can keep you in the loop and if necessary, ballot you.
“I think it's fair to say that management hopes that they might be able to divide Guardian and the Observer journalists. That might have been their hope, [but they] have completely failed because it's created one of the most unanimous strengths of feelings I've ever seen since I've been working there.”
Tom then highlighted other potential risks from the proposed merger, reporting fears expressed generally for media pluralism in the embattled Sunday paper market.
He said: “In the light of what we don't know about Tortoise’s backups [is] whether this is the start of a retreat from print by Guardian News and Media, given that the Observer is its second best-selling print product of the week behind the Saturday Guardian.”
Threats to 70 jobs
Tom explained that the merger potentially threatened jobs at the Guardian as well as the Observer: “This will have a bad effect on both operations because from the Guardian's point of view we could lose around 70 staff and that's what they're saying that's the sort of numbers that would be hived off. They haven't they elaborated which of those they would cherry pick and how that would work. It weakens the Guardian, it weakens the Guardian's model as well, because for the last 10 years or so the general model of the Guardian has been to try and get upfront reader subscriptions, reader contributions, stressing the importance of not [being] owned by big private media moguls and investors.
“Part of that is the appeal of having a round, comprehensive product seven days a week, which will become lopsided, so it does threaten the Guardian…
“It could reduce workloads and reduced workloads means pressure for more redundancies.
“From the Observer's point of view, it's the fact that it's a leap into the unknown for people who do go over to the Observer.
“You've got this five-year guarantee of investment from these unknown investors - but beyond that, what?
“There's talk that some of these unnamed extra investors, private equity, obviously want their return. And there are suggestions that one of the backers might have links to the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund, which given what happened with the Telegraph last year is a no-no for British UK media. So, we're trying very hard to stress that it's an equal risk to both operations.
“Ultimately, we're fighting this because it puts our jobs, conditions and journalism at risk and demonstrates a crude bottom line first approach from a media organisation that pitches itself to its readers as ‘not like the others’, not run by overbearing press barons, but progressive and beholden to no one answerable only to the readers who provide such a major source of its revenue subscription and reader funding models.
“To properly defend those values, the NUJ needs to win this. We need to win this as a chapel and a branch. And that's our focus so any motions of support or anything that other branches can do would be greatly appreciated.”
NUJ and London Freelance Branch support for the Guardian and Observer chapel to successfully resist
One member was keen to find out whether London Freelance Branch has started drawing up advice for freelance members on possible transfer of undertakings (TUPE) and, if so, what the timeline might be.
How will LFB support the Guardian/ Observer chapel? Can we contact LFB members who do work for GNM and ask them to join the chapel so we can get as much support as possible around this time?
What the Guardian and Observer chapel needs from London Freelance branch and the NUJ
The chapel needs guidance from the NUJ/LFB for the people who may be affected by this such, as the casual workers who've been working for the Guardian for years, who may need legal advice about what their rights are if the Observer/ Tortoise Merger goes ahead.
The timeline is short. They're talking about doing this transfer by December.
One way that everyone here could support the chapel is on social media - by for example Tweeting the Press Gazette articles exposing some of the things that the Scott Trust has been doing: the celebrities that have supported the Observer; the letter they wrote and the three Observer editors as well.
The chapel wants to get the word out that this is a bad deal and is a really bad thing that is happening to journalists. “That would be very helpful.”
Mike Holderness, editor of the Freelance said that he will be seeking advice for regular casuals and what might be negotiable. He said, as somebody who writes about industrial relations, that the interaction between rules on transfer of undertakings (TUPE) and regular casual contracts can be tricky.
Motion of support
Mike proposed a motion: This Branch offers every support that it can to the Guardian and Observer Chapel. Chair Tim Gopsill seconded it and it passed by acclaim.
Casuals voting in ballots
Tom Davies ended his report by emphasising that the priority now will be to prosecute the dispute, to get the ballots out. “We're getting that all watertight and should it come to strike action and picket lines please come and join us.”
“I know there is some precedent with regular casuals being able to vote in some ballots. Chapels have made decisions about whether that's been wise or not in the past. When I was a casual at the Independent about 20 years ago, I did get a vote as a regular casual in an industrial action ballot and there's also precedent for regular casuals getting some sort of redundancy payment but I’d rather than not have redundancies at all but those can be looked at.
Tom thanked the Branch for inviting him.