Newspaper red squads hit again

Newspaper red squads hit again
10/10/08

[donation]

By Joel Thurtell

A top Detroit News editor recently ordered employees not to take part in political activity. The Newspaper Guild wrote a strongly-worded letter warning the paper that its effort at stifling free expression is a violation of the union contract.

At the Detroit Free Press, the other Gannett paper in town, despite an arbitrator’s order earlier this year that the newspaper stop banning staffers from taking part in the American democratic process, self-appointed newsroom ethics cops still browbeat colleagues who want to express their political views.

The Free Press is particularly two-faced, publicly high-fiving itself for protecting citizens’ rights to know what government is doing, sending reporters to do freedom-of-information battle in court, yet denying that those same employees have First Amendment rights to freedom of expression.

You’d think Gannett — which owns both the News and Free Press — also owns the Constitution.

A large part of the problem is a mindset among many journalists that says they gave up their right to freedom of expression when they became journalists. It’s a credo instilled in journalism students by journalism school professors and reinforced in newsrooms across the country where non-partisanship is de rigeur for entrance into the club of journalists.

A curious club it is, since unlike doctors, lawyers, plumbers and hairdressers, journalists are never examined for their qualifications and carry no certificates or licenses attesting to their competency. Yet some of them have the temerity to beat colleagues with the “ethics” cudgel.

Entering information about an employee’s non-work politics into company files is, practically speaking, identical to the police “red squads” that used to collect and file political information about citizens. By court order, those police red squads have been shut down.

It is possible that by another court action, similar repressive behavior by private companies such as newspapers might be stopped.

In Michigan, there is a little-known bulwark against both employer harassment of politicking employees and by extension, it’s a prohibition against baiting of staffers by peers.

It’s called the Bullard-Plawecki Employee Right To Know Act.

Bullard-Plawecki actually makes it illegal for employers to keep tabs on employees’ non-work-related political activities. And it could be interpreted to mean that fellow employees who hassle their peers for their political views — if the politicking employee is reported to bosses or otherwise has his or her views or activities placed in company files — might be acting unlawfully.

In other words, wonder of wonders, it may actually be illegal to be a stool pigeon.

To my knowledge, the law has not been used to protect journalists from prying, manipulating editors or their lackeys. But I believe it could be.

Here’s what Section 8 of the Bullard-Plawecki Employee Right to Know Act says:

”(1) an employer shall not gather or keep a record of an employee’s association, political activities, publications, or communications of non-employment activities, except if the information is submitted in writing by or authorized to be kept or gathered, in writing, by the employee to the employer. This prohibition on records shall not apply to the activities that occur on the employer’s premises or during the employee’s working hours with that employer that interfere with the performance of the employee’s duties or duties of other employees.”

In Michigan, according to this statute, no employer may monitor or keep records of workers’ extracurricular activities of virtually any kind, including political activities.

There is a remedy:

According to Section 11 of Bullard-Plawecki, “If an employer violates this act, an employee may commence an action in the circuit court to compel compliance with this act. The circuit court for the county in which the complainant resides, the circuit court for the county in which the complainant is employed, or the circuit court for the county in which the personnel record is maintained shall have jurisdiction to issue the order. Failure to comply with an order of the court may be punished as contempt. In addition, the court shall award an employee prevailing in an action pursuant to this act, the following damages:

(1) For a violation of this act, actual damages plus costs.

(2) For a willful and knowing violation of this act, $200.00 plus costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, and actual damages.”

An arbitrator ruled that Free Press editos were wrong to forbid me to donate money to a political party. I believe Free Press editors violated Bullard-Plawecki in my case. Free Press Editor Paul Anger placed in my personnel file a copy of email correspondence about my $500 donation to Michigan Democrats in 2004. In addition, Free Press Executive Editor Caesar Andrews informed me that if I made further political contributions, I would be subject to company discipline up to and including dismissal.

What is that if not “gather(ing) or keep(ing) a record of an employee’s association, political activities, publications, or communications of non-employment activities.”

That is illegal, according to Bullard-Plawecki.

The newspaper as Enforcer of Journalistic Orthodoxy.

The newspaper as red squad. An odd shoe, yet it fits.

Drop me a line at joelthurtell(at)gmail.com