OCCUPY EVERYTHING

Occupy HarperCollins Seeking Support from HarperCollins Authors

A tipster has forwarded us an e-mail that HarperCollins’s union, Local 2110 of the UAW, has been sending to writers who have published books with the company, asking the writers to sign an open letter of support. As we reported earlier, a protest at HarperCollins has been announced for next Wednesday. The e-mail, which we publish below the jump, requests support from authors in ongoing contract negotiations. Our tipster called the experience “slightly awkward.”

The contract dispute at the company predates Occupy Wall Street, but appears to be benefiting from its energy. “Essentially we have been in negotiations with them for over a year,” Eden Schulz, recording secretary at the union, told The Observer. She added that HarperCollins has been unwilling to cooperate with the union despite healthy profits. “They’re really lowballing us on wages, asking for increases in healthcare costs and trying to gut our seniority protection for our employees.”

She said that Local 2110 represents “everyone from editorial assistants to designers” at the publishing house. It also represents workers at the nearby Museum of Modern Art, which has also seen protests recently. Ms. Schulz said she hopes workers from MoMA will join HarperCollins picketers next week.

A request for comment from HarperCollins was not immediately returned. Update: Erin Crum, a spokesperson for HarperCollins, e-mailed us the following comment:

HarperCollins is currently negotiating its labor contract with the United Auto Workers (UAW), Local 2110.  We are offering a very fair and competitive package, one that will continue to make HarperCollins a great place to work for all our employees. We are committed to bargaining in good faith, and trying to reach a fair agreement with the union. Because HarperCollins believes it should only bargain with the union at the negotiating table, and not in the press, we are not able to provide additional details at this time.

Here is the full text of the e-mail the union has been sending to HarperCollins authors.

Dear HarperCollins Author:

As you are no doubt aware, the publishing process involves a great
number of people with unique areas of specialization, each of whom
plays a vital role in ensuring that your book is given the best
possible treatment and chance for success. At HarperCollins, many of
those people are covered under a collective bargaining agreement and
represented as part of union Local 2110, UAW. Employees of
HarperCollins have been represented by this union since the 1940s, and
its members may be found in every department, from editorial,
marketing, and design to production and publicity. Every book
published by HarperCollins benefits immensely from our talent and
professionalism.

However, our union is currently facing the greatest threat in its history.

HarperCollins and its parent company, News Corporation, are insisting
that we accept a devastating array of concessions. Under management’s
proposed revisions to the contract:

·         Yearly guaranteed raises would be eliminated, leaving all
wage increases wholly at management’s discretion. Furthermore, the
obligation that HarperCollins spend a certain percentage of the
payroll on raises would be eliminated.   With salaries starting at
just $30,000 and a median salary of just $41,000, we depend on
receiving regular increases just to survive from paycheck to paycheck.

·         HarperCollins increased the cost of employee contributions
to our health care premiums by half this year. This hurts all
HarperCollins employees, but because of the regressive formula the
Company uses to determine each employee’s monthly contribution,
employees on the lower end of the salary scale pay a far greater
proportion of our income for health benefits then the best-compensated
HarperCollins employees in management.

·         All seniority protections would be drastically reduced, as
well as all obligations to notify employees of layoffs, leaving
HarperCollins with wide leeway to eliminate any employee at any time,
with no notice, for any reason—even if that person had spent their
entire working life with the company.

·         Union members would be required to accept a whole host of
changes to their working conditions, including reduced maternity
leave, lower raises upon promotions, and restrictions on the use of
vacation time.

HarperCollins, by its own admission, continues to make a substantial
profit. Sadly, publishing professionals do not make much money, but
HarperCollins’s employees receive some of the lowest salaries in the
entire industry. Taken as a whole, the above contract proposals
represent an attack on working people by one of the world’s most
profitable media companies.  We love the work that we do for the
company but ask simply for fair and reasonable conditions.  As an
esteemed author, we urge you to sign our open letter of support. For
more information, or to find out additional ways to show your support,
please contact Eden Schulz at our union office at 212-387-0220 or
edenschulz@2110uaw.org.

Sincerely,

The Unionized Employees of HarperCollins Publishers, Local 2110, UAW

Follow Emily Witt via RSS.

Comments

  1. Sherrl2 says:

    Good luck to all of you in Local 2110. When I noted in the article that News Corp owns HarperCollins, it all fell into place. I was a secretary working for News International in London when Murdoch  sacked all 6000 of us print workers back in 1986. Your fight is my fight! Yesterday a British MP called James Murdoch a Mafia Boss right in his face. Best thing a MP has said or done in a long long time ….
    All my best, Sherrl Yanowitz, Secretaries Rep and member of the Joint Chapels Liaison Committee SOGAT 82, through the entire Wapping dispute/

  2. nsanyi23 says:

     Indeed, as a reader to this blog I am truly impressed by it`s content, have been coming across posts that are so very informative for me, keep impressing us! well worth the read.I found it very informative as I have been researching a lot lately on practical matters such as you talk about.

  3. Lighthope says:

    I fully support both the employees and the employer to work out a satisfactory deal.  If not, HaperCollins is free to find employees who will provide acceptable labour at an acceptable cost, and the union is free to find an employer who will provide acceptable wages for their labour.

    Neither the union nor HarperCollins are “guaranteed” workers or wages.  Slavery, either of workers or of employers, was outlawed long ago.

    The union is not owed a job, and the business is not owed labour.  Either they come to a mutual agreement, or part ways.  If HarperColins can find replacement workers, then the union overvalued their labour.  If HarperColins can not find replacement workers, then HarperColins undervalued their labour.

    Simple.

    1. Anonymous says:

      Without a union, what you are saying is absolutely true in the US (unfortunately). But with a union the situation is very different. The company is legally obligated to bargain in good faith with the union and it would be absolutely illegal for them to decide to replace everyone with “cheaper” workers. 

      1. Lighthope says:

        > The company is legally obligated to bargain in good faith with the union

        Why?  Why is anyone obligated to do anything?  A Company should be free to hire anyone they want to just as a worker is free to work for anyone they want to, both presuming they can come to a mutually acceptable agreement.

        > and it would be absolutely illegal for them to decide to replace everyone with “cheaper” workers

        Why not?  A worker is free to quit to take a higher paying job. Why isn’t a company allowed to seek out lower paid workers?  Because of this notion that a worker needs a job to survive?  A company needs a profit to survive.  If a company doesn’t survive, its workers are laid off, no one is hired, everyone starves and dies.

        No one is “owed” anything.  You earn it by providing something that someone else is willing to pay for.  If someone asks too much or demands too little, they shouldn’t get it anyway.

        My dinner is too expensive.  You’re obligated to negotiate with me in good faith to lower the price.  Tried that at a restaurant?  Get very far?  How exactly is this any different?

        In this case, HarperCollins has determined that the wages the union is asking for is higher than the market will bear.  Why do they not have the right to test that theory?  Why is the union insulated from testing the theory that their workers are actually worth the wages they demand?

        The bottom line is (and should be) that if the union does not like the working conditions of HarperCollins, they are free to find employment elsewhere.  I’ve looked over this article a number of times and nowhere have I seen anyone mention guns and head-holding.  Other than the union doesn’t want to be unemployed.  Well, sure.  Who does?  Don’t want to be unemployed?  Don’t make demands that can’t or won’t be met.

        HarperCollins is free to pay whatever they feel they can get away with.  Unions are free to demand whatever they feel they can get away with.  The beauty of it is that they should be able to meet in the middle or go their separate ways and endure whatever consequences those reap.  The problem is, guns ARE involved.  The guns, however, are only pointed at HarperCollins, using a law that, ultimately, the Federal Government was never given the power to enact by the Constitution.