BARGAINING: Guild, AP discuss social media/online harassment FEB 2

February 2, 2023

More from this week’s bargaining: Guild bargainers presented our counterproposal to the company’s proposed “social networks policy.”

Mike Warren explained that staffers who participated in AP’s social media and online harassment policy committees were dismayed that company bargainers haven’t included any wording that would commit the AP to protecting and defending its staff. The company proposal has been limited to a two-page list of do’s and don’ts of social media posts. It has failed to include most of the AP committees’ recommendations, which currently can be found on InsideAP.

In response, the Guild proposal is a combined Online Harassment/Social Media Policy, which adopts the AP committees’ recommendations nearly verbatim. In many cases we simply changed the wording from “we recommend” to “The AP is committed to” taking actions on behalf of its employees. Warren shared a side-by-side comparison of the two proposals, showing how the committee recommendations are reflected in the Guild language. The company bargainers said they would study it and respond.

Among other things, the Guild proposal clarifies contradictory wording in the AP proposal and organizes the material in a clear outline so that any AP person in a crisis can quickly review the policy, know what to do and where to find more support.

A key aspect is the S.A.F.E. program, which is already being implemented at AP. The company proposal didn’t explain or mention S.A.F.E., other than in a linked document that tells people to see the #safe Slack channel. The Guild proposal spells out clearly how a staffer under attack can seek support through this program.

The Guild proposal also addresses the reputational risk AP journalists face, and would have the AP commit to publicly standing behind its people and journalism when they’re under significant and sustained attacks. No such language in the company proposal.

The AP’s committees recommended that the AP adopt a proactive approach to online safety, including paying for professional help removing personal information from social media and other online spaces before they can be exploited by bad actors. The online harassment committee specifically asked AP to pay for “DeleteMe” services for every staffer. Instead, company bargainers said employees could pay for such services themselves after they’ve been attacked.

Because effective digital hygiene involves time-consuming, costly and highly technical work that must be done in advance to be effective, the has union proposed the following language: “The AP is committed to providing the resources necessary to remove personal employee information that’s exploitable online, including but not limited to paying for digital footprint protection services as a benefit to any staff wishing to participate.”

The Guild proposal also agrees with the committees’ recommendation to formally extend the policy to include freelancers and other outside contributors, obligating anyone who contributes to the AP’s editorial product to follow the policy. The company’s bargainers pushed back on this, saying they would only discuss rules that apply to staff.

Warren noted that the reputations of Guild-covered staff are at stake if an outsider who shares a byline or contributor line doesn’t follow AP Policies and thereby draws attacks to AP staff and journalism. This is a risk the Guild’s Professionalism Committee has repeatedly raised with top managers, and managers have responded verbally that AP’s ethics policy applies to outside contributors. The Guild wants this in writing.

The two sides expect to discuss the proposals in detail at a future session.