MORNING STAR JOURNOS TO STRIKE
From the National Union of Journalists. NUJ members at the London-based Morning Star are to strike over low pay.
They’ve voted 11 to three in a ballot for industrial action and last night called a one-day walk-out for Monday 23 February - with a week of strike action to follow if management refuses to compromise.
NUJ Father of Chapel Steve Mather said: “We’re not going to take any more of our bosses’ broken promises.”
Two years ago, management at the socialist daily averted strike action by pledging to boost pay as soon as money was available.
But, after a £600,000 investment from an “anonymous consortium”, staff have been told that none of it will go on their wages. NUJ members have roundly rejected an offer close to 2008 inflation - effectively a pay freeze - alongside a one-off four per cent bonus, because it does nothing to address the long term issue of low pay at the title.
Steve explained: “We don’t need one-off bribes, we need a step towards decent pay.
“We all work hard to bring out a decent paper against all the odds, yet our bosses won’t even pay us £19,000 after the biggest investment in our history.”
NUJ General Secretary Jeremy Dear backed the Morning Star chapel, saying: “Our members feel forced into this action by a management that is refusing to pay its staff a fair rate for their work. They don’t want to go out on strike but if that’s what it takes to win fair pay then they are clear that is what they’ll do.”
Deputy Father of Chapel Carl Worswick added: “It’s time for management to put its money where its mouth is. We write about workers fighting for fair pay all the time - now it’s our turn.”
The paper’s management committee, which includes several leading trade union figures, has already unilaterally imposed an offer of three per cent on the journalists. The imposition of a pay deal has only served to intensify the dispute.
The NUJ has today served notice on Morning Star management that its members will take strike action on Monday 23 February and from Sunday 1 March to Friday 6 March.
I asked this question on the other thread.
Why is the Morning Star, a socialist paper, not owned and controlled by the workers - perhaps in conjunction with the readers who currently own it. Isn’t that a pretty basic socialist principle? You know, workers’ control and that sort of thing. OK, cooperativism (?) isn’t the same as socialism but it’s a start.
Has a motion to this effect been put to a Morning Star conference?
Comment by Rory — 13 February, 2009 @ 4:30 pm
1.Is the answer to your question to be found in the faulty premise “….the Morning Star, a socialist paper,”
No one will miss it!
Perhaps they should print it cheaply in China and import some proper Journalists from Cuba
Comment by PanDemonium — 13 February, 2009 @ 5:16 pm
Completely off topic, but out of curiosity: Why are NUJ chapters called “chapels” and union leaders “father of chapel”? Does anyone know?
Comment by christian h. — 13 February, 2009 @ 5:17 pm
#3 Allegedly because Caxton first operated out of an old chapel next to Westminster Abbey. It certainly goes back to well before the end of the 17th centre (the usage then being described as being ‘by the custom of time out of mind’).
It probably became generalised after that because Ecclesiastical authorities were among the first to support mass production (of bibles etc) and ran a lot of printers directly.
Accordingly all workers in a particular works were referred to as members of that chapel, the Father of the Chapel being the oldest one there. When the industry became unionised and a closed shop, all members of the chapel were also members of the union so the terminology became adopted for the union organisation.
Comment by Mike v2.0 — 13 February, 2009 @ 5:36 pm
That should read 17th century
Comment by Mike v2.0 — 13 February, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
My understanding is that not one penny of the Morning Star consortium money has been recievied yet
or do the NUJ know it has been
can they confirm the Star has now recievied the money
can they also confirm the final offer made by the manangement
it would help us draw some conclusions
Comment by Carl — 13 February, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
The NUJ state after £600,000 investment in their press release
so its clear the NUJ are stating that the star has now recievied the money
whos telling the truth
Comment by Tom — 13 February, 2009 @ 5:42 pm
If the Mangement Committee can prove that they have not recievied the consortium money I think it will weaken the NUJs arguement significantly
you cannot pay what you havent got especially with reducing sales of the paper
Comment by Sean — 13 February, 2009 @ 5:46 pm
#4
Just to be really pedantic: “among the first to support mass production (of bibles etc) ”
The mass production of books pre-dates the introduction of the printing press. I cannpt be bothered to look up the refrnece by Ootto bauer somewhere describes a thirteenth century factory where over 1000 German monks were working on a prodctin line for hand written books
Comment by Andy Newman — 13 February, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
Always thought the Star should switch to the web anyway
you cannot operate with 10 journalists on a small newspaper
local papers now run on just 1 or 2 reporters
cut the staff pay and better wages
Comment by Stefan — 13 February, 2009 @ 5:48 pm
The timing of receipt of the money really isn’t the issue at all.
Let’s hope the calling of a strike brings a decent offer. Failing that, best of luck to the journalists.
Comment by KrisS — 13 February, 2009 @ 5:52 pm
no one seems to be saying what the offer the NUJ rejected was ?
can anyone inform us
Comment by Jerry — 13 February, 2009 @ 5:52 pm
Kriss what was offer the NUJ rejected ?
Comment by Jerry — 13 February, 2009 @ 5:53 pm
I don’t have any special knowledge, the release above says:
“NUJ members have roundly rejected an offer close to 2008 inflation - effectively a pay freeze - alongside a one-off four per cent bonus”
Comment by KrisS — 13 February, 2009 @ 5:55 pm
Like many others on the left, I hope that a settlement can be reached which takes the journalists closer to the wages they deserve, and that strike action is avoided.
But I am surprised to see the Morning Star management being attacked for not making money available from the consortium for a bigger pay increase.
I have heard that the NUJ have been given a solicitors letter on behalf of the consortium confirming that the investment funds on offer are not be used to finance wages (other than those of new staff taken as part of the investment project itself).
Is this true? If so, it would appear that it is not the case that ‘bosses’ at the paper have refused to divert money into a bigger pay rise. Their hands were tied.
Perhaps the NUJ chapel could clarify, and tell us whether they support acceptance of the investment funding on the conditions offered.
On this site and elsewhere, the Star management have claimed that the investment funds have not yet been received. If the NUJ has evidence to the contrary, the union should publish it so we can all see where the truth lies.
Comment by Underpaid scribbler — 13 February, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
post 11
“The timing of receipt of the money really isn’t the issue at all.”
the journalists state in their press realse that are banking on the Consortium money being paid in
its still not clear if it has !
can the NUJ state if it has now been recieved
if so they have a good case
if not
on thin ice
Comment by Anonymous — 13 February, 2009 @ 5:59 pm
The timing of recepit is, once again, irrelevant. Let’s leave that one behind, shall we?
Comment by KrisS — 13 February, 2009 @ 6:02 pm
They should be paid what they deserve, the CPB have clearly injected a lot of money into the paper thanks to Halpin’s money, why can’t the hard working staff be paid a decent wage?
PanDemonium is correct, it aint a socialist paper, it is the paper of the labour bureaucracy.
Down with Stalinist Bosses!
Comment by Chris S — 13 February, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
Jerry at No.13 and Kriss at No.14, reliable sources in the trade tell me that the final offer rejected by the NUJ was a 4% increase on basic rate plus a 4% one-off payment.
Comment by Underpaid scribbler — 13 February, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
Right. And fair play to them. That’s not addressing their low pay at all.
Comment by KrisS — 13 February, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
Mike v.2.0, Andy: thanks! The mysterious ways of human history are indeed fascinating (y’all are free to denounce me as a bourgeois idealist now - for one day only).
Comment by christian h. — 13 February, 2009 @ 6:08 pm
Yes. There were a lot of monks working on bibles and other devotional items, in smaller and smaller format in many cases, so lots of words were abbreviated. Heretical types were also circulating manuscripts in large numbers, like Hussites in Bohemia or Lollards in England, even before the invention of printing.
Comment by Faust — 13 February, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
I think its also got something to do with the transition from craft to industrial unions, the former having distant roots in medieval guilds the latter emerging out of a new wave of unionism in the latter part of the 19th century. On the other hand this might be bollocks. My favourite NGA story was that they only abolished the post of Airraid warden in 1969. Apocraphally one father of the chapel said to management ‘you can’t be too careful’. For some strange reason, most likely connected to the racism of management, such arrangements were called ‘Spanish Practices’. On the one hand these practices could be looked at as a hangover from the era of dark sectionalism and medieval guilds. On the other hand, given the nature of the current practices of management, it seems a rather fine thing. Sad to see the Morning Star caught up in all this. The CP had many a father of the chapel.
Comment by johng — 13 February, 2009 @ 6:59 pm
“Deputy Father of Chapel Carl Worswick” seems to have the same comment this time as he had a couple of weeks ago. Hasn’t he been given an updated program?
If it’s true that they were offerred 4% plus a 4% bonus, at a time when CPI inflation is 3.1%, RPI inflation is 0.9%, unemployment is rising and their NUJ colleagues are facing real pay and staff cutbacks, then they really should have accepted it. Not doing so suggests there is something going on here over and above the pay issue.
Incidentally re comment #1, a) the Morning Star is owned by the People’s Press Printing Society, which is a co-operative society, and b) the NUJ doesn’t represent all of the people working for the Morning Star (maybe a minority(?)), so your comment is pretty irrelevant in the context of this dispute.
Comment by Graham Day — 13 February, 2009 @ 8:42 pm
Isn’t it quite simple to see what’s going on? 4% of f-all is f-all. The journalists have an expectation that there low pay will be addressed, and this isn’t addressing it. You can imaguine all sorts of “something over and above” if you want to, but there’s no need for anything more than the pay issue to explain the strike action.
Comment by KrisS — 13 February, 2009 @ 8:54 pm
They’re not getting paid “f-all”, KrisS. They’re not well paid (though they knew that when they joined), but they’re being paid quite a bit more than the “London Living Wage”, for example.
And if the comment above is true, they’re being offered a real terms increase, plus an additonal one-off payment (which would probably be repeated if finances allowed it next year). In the context of the real world that most Morning Star readers and supporters live in, that doesn’t look too bad.
Comment by Graham Day — 13 February, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
I’m sure you understand the point about percentages, Graham, even if it suits you to pretend not to.
Comment by KrisS — 13 February, 2009 @ 9:07 pm
Hmm, let’s see KrisS… “F-all” would equal “zero”. So 4%*0 =0.
But I’m sure you recognise the fact that circa £18000 doesn’t equal zero KrisS, even if you pretend not to.
Though maybe you’re a journalist too, in which case maybe you could get a passing P3 pupil to explain?
Comment by Graham Day — 13 February, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
Oops, sorry KrisS, if you were actually a journalist then you may know a bit more about journalist’s pay. Which you clearly don’t.
But maybe that P3 pupil would still be of help.
Comment by Graham Day — 13 February, 2009 @ 9:15 pm
most of the cpb memers i’ve ever met are very wealthy because they are old and are in good positions in the bureacuracy and they have these people working for them for nothing by placing them in a separate company.
Comment by experience — 13 February, 2009 @ 9:16 pm
Graham, are you actually paid to come here and spout this rubbish, or do you do it because you actually believe it?
Comment by KrisS — 13 February, 2009 @ 9:20 pm
#30 most of the CPB members I’ve met are normal people in normal jobs, with normal rates of pay.
Of course, maybe you could back up your prejudices with actual examples? Using your real name would be a start?
Comment by Graham Day — 13 February, 2009 @ 9:20 pm
What “rubbish” would this be, KrisS? Still struggling with the maths?
Comment by Graham Day — 13 February, 2009 @ 9:22 pm
Your shilling for the Star management, Graham, that is the particular rubbish I’m talking about.
I don’t believe you’re stupid enough not to understand the point. If you are, then apologies for wasting time talking to you at all.
Comment by KrisS — 13 February, 2009 @ 9:24 pm
It’s a shame that the management’s arrogance and stubborn refusal to pay their staff a living wage has forced the workers into this action.But we are where we are and socialists of every stripe should give their full support to the workers who are fighting a just fight against a reactionary and incompetent management who are putting their own interests above those of our paper and of our class as a whole.
Comment by karl stewart — 13 February, 2009 @ 9:26 pm
KrisS, I made a perfectly reasonable point, that if the comment above is true then they’re being offered an above inflation pay rise, plus a bonus. In the real world, that’s better than most people are getting, and it’s certainly better than virtually all NUJ members are getting.
You can’t deal with that point, and you resort to facetious nonsenses. I’m sorry that you can’t take it when I respond in kind.
As for “the Star management”, that would be a management committee made up of lifelong trade union activists. The notion that they are exploiting these journalists is utterly laughable.
Comment by Graham Day — 13 February, 2009 @ 9:32 pm
Re #34, as I pointed out above, the London living wage is substantially less than the pay at the Morning Star.
Comment by Graham Day — 13 February, 2009 @ 9:33 pm
Sorry, I meant comment#35: the London living wage is substantially less than a journalist’s salary at the Morning Star.
Comment by Graham Day — 13 February, 2009 @ 9:34 pm
it’s certainly better than virtually all NUJ members are getting
So you think the relevant comparison to make is with journalists generally, Graham? Ok. So what’s the average journalist’s wage? And what do journalists at the Star earn?
Comment by KrisS — 13 February, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
#30 ‘most of the cpb memers i’ve ever met are very wealthy’
Which idiot dreamt this one up? They obviously don’t know any typical CPB members. Everyone reading this who does will know that such a statement is utter rubbish.
With friends like this, the underpaid Morning Star journalists don’t need enemies. And they’ve already got Karl ‘I make it up as I go along’ Stewart supposedly on their side, having bailed out for a much bigger salary after his own efforts to get a strike at the paper failed.
Comment by Communist bureaucrat — 13 February, 2009 @ 11:59 pm
Indeed Communist bureaucrat.
My expereince of CPB members is quite the opposite of the ludicrous claim that they are well off.
Many talented comrades have devoted huge efforts to the workers movement for their whole life; and had they put the same effort into self advancement they may well have been rich.
The issue of this trade dispute at the Morning Star is clearly a serious one, and comments that seek to inflame the situation by gratuitously insulting either the journalists or the management are extremely unhelpful.
I am sure that I speak for most of us when I hope that a fraternal compromise can be reached.
Comment by Andy Newman — 14 February, 2009 @ 12:08 am
It´s not like there havent been industrial disputes at the Morning Star before……the management needs a good boot up it´s arse and should pay the Star workers what they deserve.
If there were any real democracy, sense or justice within the organisation the workers should get bailed out by ” stalinist millionaire Anita Halpin´s stalinist MILLIONS….
If only it were the case that it was or is a “socialist” daily….
As for the CPB……members ? there are any?
That´s stretching the imagination a bit far.Apparently the party interested a couple on drunk teenagers several months ago on their way home from a night out on the piss or possibly not.
The CPB? I always thought it was a fictitious organisation invented by…….well, you couldnt invent the Morning Star even if you tried COULD YOU?
Time for the Star workers to really kick arse, time for radical SOCIALIST change and an introduction to real class and socialist politics within it´s still slim line output instead of the usual painfully dull boring Labourist dirges and the safe and sound gently nuanced bland political commentaries, which only really serve to settle the inert trade union bureaucrats fat bellies and indigestion after their early morning power business breakfasts with Blue Labour ministers and gladen the failing hearts of the ever sad and deluded burnt out stalinist´s and their communist future yearnings.
All power to the workers!
Comment by Flea bite — 14 February, 2009 @ 1:00 am
Flea bite, are you drunk, stoned or is it just way past your bedtime?
Shall I come over, tuck you in and read you a story? How about the one about the Big Bad Billy Goat Gruff, a Stalinist if ever there was one. Or will that give you nightmares?
Now eat your supper, crawl into your sleeping bag and grow up.
Comment by Communist bureaucrat — 14 February, 2009 @ 1:08 am
Wow, whatever your on Flea Bite, I don’t want it!
Comment by Star Veteran — 14 February, 2009 @ 6:49 am
Wow, whatever you’re on Flea Bite, I don’t want it!
(who the f**k pretends to have subbed this?)
Comment by Star Veteran — 14 February, 2009 @ 6:50 am
A party that calls on its members and supporters to vote for Simpson rather than Hicks in the present climate, has a lot more problems than just financial ones.
Comment by paulv — 14 February, 2009 @ 9:50 am
A very fair point Graham “KrisS, I made a perfectly reasonable point, that if the comment above is true then they’re being offered an above inflation pay rise, plus a bonus. In the real world, that’s better than most people are getting, and it’s certainly better than virtually all NUJ members are getting.”
Its not an ideal world we live in and those who work on the MS were well aware of the conditions available when they applied and the need for this type of paper to survive on a poor budget (I wonder how the MS wages and offer compare with that on Socialist Worker?).
4% + bonus would be a good offer by most poeples standards this year (hands up all those who have got more - please do post on here). Its a bloody site better than no Morning Star and all the staff joining the 2,000,000 unemployed. Lets hope both sides can resolve this issue soon.
Comment by Red — 14 February, 2009 @ 9:51 am
It’s really sad to read some of the arguments being used here.
I get more than a Star journalist. My rise this year was a smaller percentage, but I don’t use percentages to pay the bills or buy my shopping, and neither do Star workers.
Comment by KrisS — 14 February, 2009 @ 10:10 am
“those who work on the MS were well aware of the conditions available when they applied”
This argument is always used by the right whenever a group of workers strike for better pay. Ambulance workers, fire fighters, nurses - the right always say “you knew the conditions when you joined”.
And now people supposedly on the left keep repeating the same thing to the Morning Star journalists.
It’s pretty outrageous for people on the left to say it. Essentially, it means “never fight for more”. There’s no other way around it. If you use “you knew the pay was bad when you started” as an argument against a strike, you’re saying that people should always put up with conditions they inherit.
Comment by external bulletin — 14 February, 2009 @ 10:14 am
there is a rumour that the morning star workers are using this struggle as a springboard to get more power withing the paper.
currently they are treated like serfs with no input into the political line or how best resources are spent but most of them are much more sensible and capable than the idiots making the decisions right now.
£600,000 and the most ambitious suggestion is to go from 12 to 16 pages with some extra colour photographs.
If it is anita halpin investing the money she would do better to spend it on wages and on changing the managerial structure- sacking the current editor and political editor and creating a workers coop.
do that and the paper and website will be very strong within 5 years. continue on the current path and the paper is doomed.
support a workers coop at the star!!!
Comment by real revolutionary socialist — 14 February, 2009 @ 10:24 am
KrisS “I get more than a Star journalist. My rise this year was a smaller percentage, but I don’t use percentages to pay the bills or buy my shopping, and neither do Star workers”.
So lets pay the jouralists £50,000 a year and see the MS go bust in a week!
Bot sides need to accept some sort of compromise here, perhaps an offer to improve things next year and the year after as well as the 4% and the bonus - have they not already made such an offer?).
KS and others this is not the Guardian and the Mirror we are talking about - just how many copies of the MS are sold each day? Its about survival for both sides and hopefully improvements year on year.
I note that no one has told us the pay for Socialist Worker journalsits or pay for Red Pepper articles.
Comment by Red — 14 February, 2009 @ 11:27 am
Two years ago, management at the socialist daily averted strike action by pledging to boost pay as soon as money was available.
I’m not sure why you think the journalists should accept another “offer to improve things next year”.
Comment by KrisS — 14 February, 2009 @ 11:35 am
‘Real revolutionary socialist’ may be on to a good idea (#50). I suggest that he and all the non-Morning Star readers here, together with journalists who want to own and run their own daily paper, get together and set it up.
Of course, they have no right to expect financial and other support from political organisations and individuals that they are so eager to denounce on this site, nor from trade unions and others who will have no vote at the AGM which decides the editorial line of the paper and elects the manegement committee, and no places on that committee. Or anyone who doesn’t support the broad political approach of the new paper.
But all you ‘real revolutionary sociaists’ should be able to build enough unity which, together with the correct political line, should ensure a big circulation and plenty of donations.
What are you waiting for, comrades? Get on with it! The rest of us will continue to work for low pay or no pay, donating what time and money we can, to sustain and expand the Morning Star.
Let’s compare progress between our two papers in, say, five years time.
Comment by Morning Star seller — 14 February, 2009 @ 11:41 am
The Morning Star backing “Homer” Simpson over Hicks
Lets hope its a long strike, mind you nobody except Andy British Jobs for British Workers Newman reads the Star anyway.It will be good to see all those Respect members and supporters of Jerry Hicks on the picket line.
Will the Stars management be invoking the anti union laws?
The Star is just like its bosses the living dead of the British Trade Union movement. The really successful Trade Union bureaucracy, 6 million members and falling, that defended Thacher Labour whilst it smashed the public sector, privatised the NHS and allowed the Casino Mafia to take over the Banks, no wonder they scrapped the Casino they had planned for Manchester.
The Morning Star should re-brand itself as a cure for insomnia, I see the chair of Glaxo-SK is calling for drugs for the poor, surely the Star should be in the lead and market itself as the new Mogadon, without any side effects other than a tendency to suicide if used over too prolonged a period
Is there any truth to the rumour that the Stars management have been secretly building a new plant in Wapping and are thinking of sacking their journalists and moving production. They may however decide to import Cuban journalists and print the paper in slave labour camps run by the Chinese Army
The Morning Star, an interminable, cloying, colourless, dead, drab rag and probably the most gutless apology for Stalinism in human history
Comment by PanDemonium — 14 February, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
Further to #50 and #53, we will of course expect the workers’ co-op daily paper to pay the full going rate to all journalists and other staff, without short-time and redundancies, regardless of sales and other revenue.
Comment by Morning Star seller — 14 February, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
Perhaps PanDemonium (#54) could write a medical column in the new workers’ co-op daily paper, comparing and contrasting his various medications.
Comment by Morning Star seller — 14 February, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
I’m looking forward to PanDemonium’s first article already: ‘Cuban Stalinists send thousands of doctors to Venezuela and other Third World countries to sabotage working class diseases’.
Comment by Morning Star seller — 14 February, 2009 @ 1:26 pm
Maybe save up the next three incisive and hilarious rib-ticklers and stick them in the one post? Just a thought.
Comment by KrisS — 14 February, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
Kriss (#58). Not so easy when posts cross in the ether, old son. But thanks for the thought.
By the way, in reference to one of your earlier posts, couldn’t you find out the average journalists wage, in order to compare it with the one at the Star? It’s not that difficult, surely, especially given your concern for the well-being of the journalists there.
I’ll see if I can help you out.
Comment by Morning Star seller — 14 February, 2009 @ 1:46 pm
Thanks for your effusive support MorningStar seller.
I do hope that your humour is on a par with your salespersonship.
Now, just for general amusement, how many copies does the Star sell? and is it available in Boots yet?
Incidentally any truth to the rumour that the Stars next mass sales drive will be based on a buy one get one free offer and giving away a free packet of ribbed ticklers with every copy of the paper?
As to other medical uses for the Morning Star
Psychologists have long noticed the Stars ability to induce states of selective denial and forgetfulness particularly of the mass murders carried out by Stalinist regimes. The Pentagon is understood to be experimenting with the Morning Stars capacity to remove all human feelings and empathy, the so called Hungarian Syndrome otherwise known as the Beria Complex.
I am told, by those in the know, that as well as its renown sedative and narcotic properties the Opinion page can also be very good for the Bowels. It is particularly effective for Trade Union Constipation syndrome, TUC.
The Sport pages are a well known tonic for sphincter frenzy a common complaint that has unfortunately broken out amongst the supporters of the privatising Labour Party. The front page if soaked in water, and little humanity, overnight is very good for piles.
Recent scientific reports suggest that the paper has profound contraceptive properties.
Socialism with a human face
Comment by PanDemonium — 14 February, 2009 @ 2:38 pm
I’ll stick to the facts, and hopefully clear a few arguments up.
I have worked as a reporter for the Morning Star since June 2007. You can find my byline in the paper.
The consortium investment is £500,000, not £600,000.
It has not yet been paid to the Morning Star.
The investment is to fund a three-year plan to increase readership by increasing pagination by four pages a day, having more colour pages and a larger print run, making the website free to access and employ six more journalists to do the extra work required.
The plan necessitates that the paper to raise sales by a thousand copies daily each year for three years to be sustainable, and by more than that to improve on the current financial situation.
The investment will be highest in the first year, reducing in the second and third as the hoped-for increase in sales raises income.
The Morning Star is owned by the Peoples’ Press Printing Society, a reader’s co-operative.
Membership of the PPPS is on the basis of a minimum shareholding of £5, with a £20,000 maximum.
Many employees of the paper (including myself), and the NUJ chapel collectively, are PPPS shareholders.
All shareholders, regardless of the size of their stake, get one vote at the PPPS AGM.
The AGM elects the 15-member Management Committee (MC), which meets six times a year (every two months).
Trade unions with a maximum (£20,000) shareholding automatically have a seat on the MC. Three unions currently do so: Unite, RMT and FBU.
The MC appoints the editor, who decides other journalistic appointments and the editorial (political) line of the paper.
The MC decides the budget, pay rates and the annual pay increase.
The original NUJ chapel pay claim for 2009 was an inflation + 2.5% consolidated increase plus a £1,000 flat-rate unconsolidated bonus (roughly 6% of the basic rate).
The chapel defines inflation as average RPI inflation for the previous year, which for 2008 was 4%.
The original management pay offer for 2009 was a 3% consolidated increase plus a 3% unconsolidated bonus.
The current managemnt offer is 4% consolidated plu 4% unconsolidated, equating to roughly £700 plus £700 on the basic rate of just under £18,000 per year.
The present NUJ claim is 6% consolidated + 4% unconsolidated, equating to roughly £1,000 plus £700 on the basic rate.
The Morning Star Unite chapel, which represents the non-journalist third of the 25 staff, voted in December to accept the original management offer.
The Morning Star recieves a significant proportion of its cuurent income from donations to the monthly £16,000-target fighting fund.
In 2007 and 2008 the paper recieved a substantial sum in legacies from deceased readers. Without the legacies the paper would have made a loss. In the preceding two years the sum received from legacies was much smaller.
Comment by James Tweedie — 15 February, 2009 @ 12:29 am
Now for my opinion.
The planned strike action, if it goes ahead, will likely bankrupt the paper.
I do not appreciate posters on this website, many of whom would dearly love to see the paper go bust, taking such delight in the prospect of my colleagues and I finding ourselves on the dole in the midst of the worst depression since the Great Depression.
Go and troll on Barrack Obama’s blog if you’ve got nothing better to do.
Comment by James Tweedie — 15 February, 2009 @ 12:35 am
The Morning Star management - specifically the newly appointed political editor and the newly appointed editor - have caused this current crisis and it really is time for the Morning Star management committee to summon up the courage and the will to deal with them before they wreck our paper.
There is a great deal of talent and commitment at the paper and there are others at the paper who could do a far better job than this pair and who should be given the opportunity to do so.
The question is, has the management committee got the courage and the will to do what is necessary?
Comment by karl stewart — 15 February, 2009 @ 12:39 am
Karl, how exactly is it Bill and John’s fault? And have I only just reminded you of how the PPPS works?
I should also remind you that the PPPS passes resolutions, which the MC and the editor are obliged to implement. Getting the paper to Scotland on the day of publiction was one of them.
There is already democracy and collective leadership at the paper, which any member of staff or reader can participate in. Those who choose not to can hardly claim that it is undemocratic.
Comment by James Tweedie — 15 February, 2009 @ 12:50 am
James, I hope that you are not forced into strike action as well. I want thepaper to succeed and I have no time for those who want to use this dispute to attack the paper and the party.
The roots of this lie in the abandonment by management to a year-on-year pledge to raise wages to the industry standard - according to Nick Wright to the average wage.
This change of pay policy was decided by the current politival editor - then the editor - and the current editor - then the deputy editor - in the pre-2004 pay round.
From 2004 until now, annual rises have dropped from the previous formula of 1,000 per year to aite over half that amount.
The “catch-up” has accumulatively slowed and, in proportion, the annual pay round has become ever-more fraught as a consequence, as Star workers are, quite simply, not being paid enough to live on.
Decisions by the two senior individuals - the 20060″secret deal” the ever-earlier deadlines, “Project Scotland” - and numerous other errors have been taken without consultation and have increased tensions over this period.
The public insulting of staff and the claims over “ring-fencing” have shown an utter inability and unwillingness to even begin to address the problems that their mismanagement has created.
I hope that a solution can be found that will avoid a strike, but, as I said before, it does depend on the management committee taking some responsibility.
Comment by karl stewart — 15 February, 2009 @ 1:11 am
Karl
Before you recruit me to your tendentious and disruptive campaign to bankrupt the Morning Star you should first check that what you say and imply is consistent with what I have said. In earlier posts I referred to the terms of an agreement reached between the NUJ chapel and the management at the Morning Star following a period of many years when pay did not rise.
I drafted the NUJ proposal which was for a £1000 rise that year and annual pay negotiations. The framework was for a series of annual negotiations that would aim to reach the target of broad parity with average income. Note, not average pay and not the target of £26,000 pa that an NUJ conference in later years set. Your constant repitition of your claim that the agreement was for an open ended commitment to raise pay by £1000 annually until the target of average pay was met is simply untrue.
The management, newly constituted and made up of experienced trade union people, and the chapel both accepted the need for the successive annual negotiations to take into account affordability. Indeed the chapel explicitly supported the renewed drive for PPPS shareholders to strengthen the capital base and for an increase in the monthly fighting fund to cover the revenue deficit.
I repeat the point made ad nauseum, but which you consistently, evade. Capital is one thing. Revenue another. Without revenue from increased sales, donations to the fighting fund and bequests the paper will be unable to carry on trading. Members of the management committee who bear the legal responsibility for these matters have very pressing personal reasons aswell as the political good sense to make proposals and reach agreements consistent with these legal responsibilities.
You have no such duty and will bear no personal responsibility if a strike, which will hit revenue, or an unsustainable increase makes continued publication impossible.
Comment by Nick Wright — 15 February, 2009 @ 2:24 am
It’s really not good enough to accuse anyone who supports Star journalists’ pay claim of being anti-Star. Stop it.
Comment by KrisS — 15 February, 2009 @ 7:57 am
“PanDemonium” - you (ll/alf/jimban/alanmalik/jj) said you would never post here again.
Why couldn’t you just stick to that, rather than polluting this blog with your filth?
The fact that you give call the blog owner “Andy British Jobs for British Workers Newman” shows why people inside your party really need to have a word with you. You’ve got no place in serious discussion.
Comment by LL - why are you back? — 15 February, 2009 @ 9:04 am
I’ve forborne from contributing on this matter so far, for two reasons. Firstly there are people on BOTH sides who seem to want to reduce it to a peurile ‘all Trots/Tankies/Editors/Journos [take your pick] are reactionary/counterrevolutionary/senile/middleclass/duplicitous [ditto]’ slanging match.
Secondly, although I’m a Sociaist Party member and so have a lot of disagreements with the Star’s editorial line, and am in any case instinctively inclined to workers striking for decent pay. I also know and like Bill Benfield, though I’ve not seen him for many years. 20 years ago I was a shop steward with him for two years at SHAC the London Housing Aid Centre (now Shelter London) and know both how hard he fought for our members then (losing his job in the process — in what I believe was an act of victimisation) and how much he is committed to and loves working for the Star and how much he is prepared to sacrifice for it.
I also believe that the Labour movement needs more papers not fewer.
I have to say, though, that unfortunately the central artguement Bill and John have deployed in support of their case: ‘the need to ring fence money for growth to secure the future of the paper, rather than jeopardise expansion/change by meeting short term demands from staff’ etc, sounds just like the arguments SHAC’s management used in pay negotiations in the early 90’s, and I well remember the pithy contempt with which Bill treated it at the time.
I’m sorry to have to say, Bill, that I think you were right then and you are wrong now.
Moreover, I think it is not merely a question of the ‘anonymous’ consotium’s money or nothing. As has been pointed out repeatedly in this discussion, there are three Trade Unions represented on the board of the Star, and number of others who contribute to the paper.
I think that the MC should approach these unions and ask them 3 simple questions:
1) How much do they pay London based NUJ members working on their papers and in their Press departments?
2) How much do the wage bills and expense accounts for their senior FTOs come to?
3) In the light of the answers to 1 and 2 do could they could possibly commit enough extra money to share with the MC the cost of meeting the NUJ claim in full? If what James Tweedie says above is correct, that doesn’t strike me as being very much.
If the answer is no, then I really wonder what basis of the claim by these unions to support the Star as a ‘paper for the Labour Movement’ is.
Comment by paulm — 15 February, 2009 @ 9:50 am
Karl
I do think you are inflaming the situation, and perhaps you should back off any allow NUJ to negotiate with management.
Comment by Andy Newman — 15 February, 2009 @ 11:31 am
From the comments of people like Graham Day criticising the journalists, does that mean that some people will cross a picket line if there is one?
Comment by Doug — 15 February, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
“Comment by LL - why are you back? — 15 February, 2009 @ 9:04 am
PanDemonium” - you (ll/alf/jimban/alanmalik/jj) said you would never post here again.
Why couldn’t you just stick to that, rather than polluting this blog with your filth?
The fact that you give call the blog owner “Andy British Jobs for British Workers Newman” shows why people inside your party really need to have a word with you. You’ve got no place in serious discussion.”
Wrong on all counts, no idea who you think I am never heard of the posters you hate so much. I am not a member of the party whatever that is.
Oh and check out Mr Newmans posting especially to Michael Rosen and see what he thinks about British jobs for British workers
Like the Labour Party, Unites Homer Simpson and the dead remnants of British Stalinism you seek to stop any debate with your fish faced, monkeys armpit posts, poorly expressed and mealy mouthed abuse.
They do not like it up em
The Morning Star like most of the British left is dead and rotting from the head down, good riddance to unimaginative humourless, nonsense,lets hope it is a long strike at least that will keep Homer out of the paper.
Comment by PanDemonium — 15 February, 2009 @ 3:56 pm
It beggars belief that anyone who has read Andy’s postings to Michael Rosen on the question on ‘British Jobs for British Workers’ would ‘never [have] heard of the posters you hate so much’ including ‘ll’ who posted as frequently in that discussion as Michael, how many more of your statements are equally credible Pan?
Comment by pull the other one... — 15 February, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
PanDemonium, don’t bother. Certain denizens of this blog have a sad fixation on the SWP - they see any issue in terms of “how can we use it to attack the SWP”. One consequence is that anyone disagreeing with them is immediately classified as a member of said party. Denial won’t help, as with any kind of conspiracy theorist the SWP obsessed kind is impervious to argument or evidence.
Comment by christian h. — 15 February, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
You look like a bit of a fool, christian. “ll” posts under numerous names, and every post is dripping with bile. He’s an embarrassment to his party. Even SWP members on here tell him to shut up.
And no-one’s fooled, “pandemonium”.
Comment by LL - why are you back? — 15 February, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
Yeah sure, I’m the fool. Maybe if you just acted a little less fixated on the misdeeds of others your problems would go away. Let’s just take one example: posting under numerous handles. Oops. So do you. Bile? Check. I’ve told II to stuff it myself on occasion. But I’m not stalking him, or whoever I assume is him, online like you seem to be doing. Take your own advice and shut up.
Comment by christian h. — 15 February, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
Two questions: 1. Has this investment actually been received yet? 2. If not, does anyone seriously imagine that this investment will be made unless or until this dispute is resolved to the investors’ satisfaction?
Comment by Francis King — 15 February, 2009 @ 8:38 pm
If #61 is correct the management offer is roughly £700 plus £700 on the basic rate and the NUJ claim is roughly £1,000 plus £700 on the basic rate then the difference between the two sides is £300 a head. It seems to me that the difference is modest and there should be scope for a negotiated agreement, bearing in mind that any strike action would damage the paper and cost the staff a significant chunk out of the wages claim in lost pay.
It is difficult to say whether or not the management could tap up some of the better off donors or unions, but the extra money probably reequired to settle the deal is actually pretty small in the scheme of things.
Comment by ross bradshaw — 15 February, 2009 @ 9:06 pm
it nearly came to a strike when I was there a couple of years ago, but was settled at the last moment by an extra 0.5% pay increase.
I would imagine that something similar will happen this time
Comment by andy — 16 February, 2009 @ 9:17 am
we want 7% and 7% and nothing less
we dont want to be sold out
we dont care whos given the money or when it arrives
Comment by Anonymous — 16 February, 2009 @ 11:13 pm
Has the bloody money been paid in or not
thats the issue
no one ver answers this either way
Comment by Tim — 16 February, 2009 @ 11:16 pm
#80, unless you know for certain that the paper can afford it ie. where the funds will come from, you are being irresponsible. The finances of the paper are not a secret, either from the co-operative shareholders or the staff. Is the money there? I don’t believe that a Morning Star journalist would not care whether the funds are available or not. If you genuinely are a Morning Star journalist, I think you and all the staff deserve the biggest pay rise possible.
#81, the Morning Star management are adamant that the expansion funding has not yet been received. The NUJ has apparently claimed otherwise, but does not provide any evidence. As it’s not possible for the Morning Star management to prove a negative (how do you prove you are not a millionaire if I insist you must have hidden bank accounts in, say, Belize?), the onus lies on the NUJ to substantiate its claim. Despite challenges, it has failed to do so.
Comment by Morning Star seller — 17 February, 2009 @ 2:44 am
Lenin on Petrograd workers wrote:
irresponsible and adventurist
PCF on May 68 strikes wrote:
irresponsible and adventurist
Labour on BA workers wrote:
irresponsible and adventurist
morning star management on NUJ strike:
irresponsible and adventurist
Comment by Anarchist wanker — 10 June, 2010 @ 12:29 pm
And it only took you 16 months to come up with this clever observation?
Comment by RobM — 10 June, 2010 @ 1:06 pm