Slate Union
LightNews LightNews
slateunion.bsky.social
Slate Union
@slateunion.bsky.social
220 followers 150 following 18 posts
Official account for @slate.com's editorial union with @wgaeast.bsky.social.
Posts Replies Media Videos
slateunion.bsky.social
On Monday morning, Slate was suddenly informed that six of its employees—including three editors, two of whom were members of the union—were being laid off, just months after four other staffers were also let go. The Slate Union's official statement reads as follows:
The Slate Union logo—the Slate S featuring upward fist and surrounded by pink and white stripes—is seen above a statement: We, the Slate Union, are united in our belief that management’s decision yesterday to lay off three editorial employees—along with three of our coworkers in other departments—was misguided, foolish, and cruel. The cuts are not these employees’ failures; they are the result of the failure of this company to follow its obligations to its workers. When you can’t find a way to make the most out of smart, talented journalists, that’s a failure of management—and Slate staffers are right to believe it’s incumbent upon management to find ways to solve that problem that don’t involve job losses. Otherwise, what are we investing in journalism for? What are we asking Slate Plus members to invest in us for? There are particular aspects of these layoffs that we in the union find particularly outrageous. Eliminating three editors with their hands on politics and business will put an unbearable strain on others in the department, at the precise moment when coverage of these two subjects is crucial to the magazine’s success. One of the laid-off editors had union-negotiated parental leave approaching—as did another union member who was laid off just months ago. Another one of the laid-off employees was about to go on a honeymoon, and yet another was about to meet the qualifications for their pension benefit. The affected worker will be paid out for their parental leave, but the timing of these departures appears to be designed to make other union members think twice before utilizing the leave they have the contractual right to take. Not to mention, that one of the laid-off editors was hired not even a year ago—after a protracted search—calls management’s strategy into question, to put it lightly. Slate has had two consecutive years of profitability. The fact that management views employees as chits to be discarded at any hint of trouble, instead of valuable people whose work makes our shop successful and profitable, is an enormous mistake. We insist that, in the upcoming contract negotiations, Slate commits to policies that treat layoffs not as a hair-trigger response to adversity but as an absolute last resort, one that will not be undertaken without consulting with the union and the employees in question. Simply paying out extra severance to a laid-off employee should no longer be a substitute for warnings about the state of our business and, more importantly, real attempts to save our staffers’ jobs. Anything short of this will demonstrate that Slate values the jobs of its executives more than its rank-and-file workers, and that good journalism by good journalists is no longer the north star of the magazine.
March 11, 2025 at 5:40 PM