The cachet of low pay

Glossies offer glamour but skimp on salaries

Our 2000 pay survey confirmed just how much salaries can vary between members doing very similar jobs, but it also threw up some surprises.

We had expected to find a significant difference in pay on weekly and monthly titles but the gap turned out to be barely noticeable.

We were also surprised by how much higher freelance shift pay on business magazines is than on consumer titles now. Evidence for rising pay in other areas was rather more ambiguous.

But first, a few words of caution. Survey forms were returned by respondents at 51 publishing companies (some of them subsidiaries of other publishers), totalling a bit less than 10% of the branch membership.

This is a better spread of employers than last year, but it is risky to make too many comparisons: respondents are anonymous, so we don't know whether they took part last year, whether they are doing the same jobs or have the same employers. Also, the job titles they have given can mean very different things in different companies.

The results for news editors' pay is a case in point. It cannot be typical for news editors to earn less than their senior reporters, but the explanation for this anomalous result may be that many monthlies have just two writers: an editor and a news editor/deputy editor, and these respondents simply outnumbered people who described themselves as news editors on weeklies. It may be sensible to combine the categories of section editor and news editor (as we did last year) to get an average salary of £26,923. This is up marginally on last year.

One unsurprising finding was that reporters who work largely or wholly on the internet earned more: £27,217 as against the average for all reporters of £22,272 (excluding those who described themselves as juniors or seniors).

The average salary for all respondents was £25,188. In some job categories average pay levels have risen and in others they have fallen. In general, the more junior positions have recorded a fall, while senior positions have risen slightly. The explanation for this might be quite healthy: the union is recruiting strongly, and many new members have joined the profession recently so their pay will tend to be lower than that of established journalists.

One pay differential that is not excusable is the gap that appears to have widened between freelance earnings on business and consumer titles. Subbing shifts on business titles commanded an average of £131.08 compared with £104.03 on consumer publications.

The average shift rates were:
• Reporter £137.48/day
• Sub-editor £119.77
• Designer £145.00
• Picture researcher £95.00

Rates varied within companies: Emap had five different rates for subs, and RBI had two rates for reporters.

The bar chart for salaries shows how much variation there was for permanent staff. As the survey guaranteed anonymity we cannot name and shame the companies that got away with paying an editor £12,500 and a news editor £12,000.

One point made by several members is that the questionnaire should not have defined people as either fulltimers or freelances: next year we will not assume that permanent posts cannot be part-time. We would be delighted to hear suggestions for how we might reword the questionnaire to improve next year's pay survey.

Freelance members may like to consult the Rate for the Job pages of London Freelance Branch's website. It details the bad payers as well as the good, so you know who to avoid. Commissioning editors should not allow publishers to use the bad examples to argue that rates should not rise: remind them what peanuts attractŠ

IPC scoops
4 Scrooges

Victory at Reed

At the beginning of November journalists at Reed Business Information voted 95% in favour of NUJ recognition and a return to collective bargaining. Out of 327 who voted, 312 voted Yes. No Florida-style recount necessary.

Naturally we were euphoric and speedily headed for the pub where members and non-members alike were delighted by the result. It felt like, and is, a new beginning for all of us in the chapel. But getting to this landmark result was a tale of nearly eight years of hard slogging, desperately trying to keep members interested - and in membership - when there was a limited amount we could do for them. Fortunately, a substantial number remained on board throughout that long, dismal period.

The long march
The story begins in October 1992 when all employees received letters from then chief executive John Matthews, advising them that agreements with the NUJ and the GPMU would not be renewed when they terminated the following March.

We held a one-day strike on a showery April morning, got very soaked and got a taste of things to come as for the next eight years we planted ourselves outside the building, handing out leaflets putting the case for union rights to employees coming into work.

It became a standing joke that any morning the NUJ was in action clear skies would turn to rain. An early supporter was Labour leader John Smith who spoke to hundreds at a meeting in front of the building. He offered to mediate with the company. They had the arrogance to turn down a meeting with the man who would surely have been prime minister had he lived. I met his successor, Tony Blair, in 1994 and he outlined details of the law that would six years later give us back our union.

Solidarity
Tony Benn and Paul Foot were among those who spoke at chapel meetings, helping to boost morale.

We kept the union going by operating as normally as possible. We held chapel meetings, social evenings, recruitment drives.

The executive met regularly. We extended financial help to other workers in struggle - journalists in Dublin; the Timex women; the rail workers and others.

Each year we put in a pay claim - each year the company ignored it. But at least the chapel had met, members had spoken. We were not going to allow ourselves to get rusty, despite all that mysterious rain.

Most importantly we stood up for individuals. Chapel officers were not recognised but we could go into disciplinary or grievance meetings as a "friend of the accused". With John Foster's help we won one of the best RSI settlements for a member that the union has secured - more than doubling the company's original offer.

Pay-off time
Finally, on 6 June 2000, the part of the Employment Relations Act 1999 that introduced recognition ballots became law. We were ready to go.

No strangers to leafleting, we bombarded the bargaining unit of 458 journalists based in Quadrant House, Sutton, and Wardour Street, Soho.

We targeted the individual journalists with a series of personal letters, one signed by John Foster, two by me.

We had a combination of a two-week postal and a limited workplace ballot. The workplace box proved its worth in the final innings when it became too late to post the forms. Many journalists received ballot papers late but we made every effort to get their votes to the Electoral Reform Service (ERS) on time.

On the final day, NEC member Mike Sherrington came to Quadrant House and took the last five ballots to the ERS, getting there 15 minutes before the ballot closed. A few hours later we heard the result and knew that our days of causing bizarre climate changes on balmy July mornings were over.
Patric Cunnane, chair of Reed Business Information NUJ branch