Last month I was asked to write an article for the Irish Journalist. Please feel free to forward to anybody you think would be interested.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the week running up to the last IEC, the third to debate the DI Agreement, NUJ members from over eight branches met and the majority voiced grave concerns about the DI Agreement. After consulting with members many on the IEC also wanted to vote to reject the deal. Two ProAgreement members then invoked rule 14D and IEC were informed that it had no legal standing to reject the deal. The IEC then voted to refer a recommendation of rejection to the full NEC. Exploiting ambiguities in the IEC motion, as reported in the Sunday Tribune, the NUJ leadership disregarded the IEC’s wishes for a full NEC meeting and convened a meeting of the NEC Emergency Committee. (At the second IEC meeting, the idea of referring the matter to the NEC Emergency Committee was raised by Seamus Dooley. A number of IEC members dismissed the idea.) This small group overturned the motions of the IEC and cleared the deal for signing. The agreement has since been signed. At this point I would like to thank the IEC and all NUJ members who took the time to inform themselves of the issues and reject the deal – what a pity the leadership were found wanting when NUJ members were in support of good work practices and high standards in journalism.
Those who champion the DI Agreement tell us that it has been drafted to recognise new technology in the newsroom. While technology may have changed the actual job of a photojournalist has not. The Limerick Leader Chapel recognised this fact and the principle of “one person, one job”. They successfully negotiated a deal that was superior to the Drogheda Independent Agreement WITHOUT conceding that reporters undertake the additional work of taking pictures.
Supporters of the agreement talk about the monitoring group but the agreement states that they only have to be cognisant of NUJ policy – why aren’t they bound by it? As worded, if the NUJ policy changes, reporters at Drogheda can still take photographs. The agreement also allows for the introduction of all new technology and journalistic practice without any further agreement with the NUJ.
The removal of rule “Working Practices 7” which used to deal with the role of photographers and reporters was highlighted but other clauses ignored. The leadership seemed happy to disregard some rules, use half truths and quotes out of context to further their arguments and at every opportunity attempted to stifle debate. The disgraceful treatment of NUJPhoto List owner Pete Jenkins and the fact that the freelance photographer most central to the agreement was not kept informed by the Drogheda Independent chapel or the Dublin office are points that the Union should examine further being against NUJ practice, rules and natural justice.
This agreement is a bad agreement for all journalists, plain and simple. While it undoubtedly has fine benefits, many already enshrined in law, it has many others, presumably publisher led, which will have repercussions on all members, writers and photographers. We must all inform ourselves about the debate, the actions of the Union leadership and use the branch mechanism to ask why they aren’t carrying out the wishes of the IEC and NUJ members in Ireland. Otherwise what’s the point of being in the Union?
ENDS
The NEC meets this week. If you, as a journalist, have concerns relating to the issues raised in this article you need to raise them with your NEC representative or the General Secretary.
Recent Comments