Media burnout—especially considering the election cycle, the novel coronavirus, and police brutality stories—is a real and consistent issue across publications. In the age of COVID-19, many publications went remote, and, over a year in, it’s no surprise that many people are realizing their employees—including in newsrooms—can function pretty perfectly without insisting everyone go into an office every day. The CEO of the Washingtonian, Catherine Merrill, however, took to The Washington Post to share an op-ed titled “As a CEO, I worry about the erosion of office culture with remote work.” Within the piece, Merrill pontificates that if a worker is rarely present, “management has a strong incentive to change their status to ‘contractor,’” as well as the notion that the hardest workers to let go are “the ones you know.”
This op-ed went up on Thursday afternoon and by Friday morning, staffers announced they were not publishing for the day, which is basically a one-day strike. Why? Because Merrill’s op-ed appears to suggest that people’s employment could be at stake if they remained remote. Also on Friday, Merrill released an apology, saying that message was not her intent.
Merrill told The Daily Beast in an interview, “I have assured our team that there will be no changes to benefits or employee status” and that she is “sorry if the op-ed made it appear like anything else.” In an email to Washingtonian staff, Merrill also reportedly clarified she would not transition any full-time staff to freelance positions and nor would anyone’s retirement benefits or health insurance be at risk.
For context, contract or freelance positions tend not to come with benefits, like 401(k) matching or paid time off, and also don't provide health insurance. They also, of course, tend to come with less job security and protection overall. All huge things to consider at any time, but especially during a pandemic.
There’s a lot at play here. Going back into the specifics of the op-ed, Merrill relies on a few anecdotal stories and a lot of personal opinions to make her argument. At one point, Merrill shares that a friend at a Fortune 500 company struggled to give a new employee adequate feedback in a remote setting, noting that no one wants to give bad news over Zoom. Sure, no one wants to give bad news, ever, but this is a classic example of management needing to do precisely what is often called upon the lower status and lower-wage employees: be flexible, adapt, and rise to the occasion. Learn some new skills and give the employee the appropriate feedback, no matter the medium.
Merrill also suggests that without people being present for “extra” work, like planning birthday parties and quick meetings, remote employees simply won’t be as much a part of the company culture. That can be true, if, of course, people in the office don’t work to integrate everyone. Does that take a little extra effort and changing how things used to be? Sure. But again, it’s the responsibility of management to make sure workspaces keep up with changing times.
Also, it’s worth pointing out that management could hire people in human resource or similar roles to prioritize things like company celebrations, mentorship opportunities, and so on. Adding in these perhaps subjective and shifting standards for “extras” puts an unfair burden on employees, especially when these tasks are in addition to their actual jobs. Also worth considering that workers who are marginalized may feel an extra burden to “prove” themselves by going above and beyond these sorts of tasks, leading to a potentially imbalanced labor output.
The Washingtonian staff bravely went public and announced their one-day strike, messages of which quickly gained traction on Twitter.
The text reads: “As members of the Washingtonian editorial staff, we want our CEO to understand the risks of not valuing our labor. We are dismayed by Cathy Merrill’s public threat to our livelihoods. We will not be publishing today.”
And here’s a moving visual of all of those tweets together.
In the bigger picture, media burnout is very real. Writers (including people who are both staff and freelance) have been mentally and intellectually engaging with trauma, unpredictability, and rapidly changing topics for months. Writers are expected to bounce between topics for quick coverage, write with accuracy, and stomach the emotional weight of covering topics many people prefer to turn away from. Merrill’s op-ed would feel off base even in reference to a different industry, but in a time when media is increasingly talking about the welfare of editorial staff and the very real reckoning the industry must face in terms of labor, protection, and the well-being of employees, Merrill’s message hits an extra sore sport.
This op-ed went up on Thursday afternoon and by Friday morning, staffers announced they were not publishing for the day, which is basically a one-day strike. Why? Because Merrill’s op-ed appears to suggest that people’s employment could be at stake if they remained remote. Also on Friday, Merrill released an apology, saying that message was not her intent.
Merrill told The Daily Beast in an interview, “I have assured our team that there will be no changes to benefits or employee status” and that she is “sorry if the op-ed made it appear like anything else.” In an email to Washingtonian staff, Merrill also reportedly clarified she would not transition any full-time staff to freelance positions and nor would anyone’s retirement benefits or health insurance be at risk.
For context, contract or freelance positions tend not to come with benefits, like 401(k) matching or paid time off, and also don't provide health insurance. They also, of course, tend to come with less job security and protection overall. All huge things to consider at any time, but especially during a pandemic.
There’s a lot at play here. Going back into the specifics of the op-ed, Merrill relies on a few anecdotal stories and a lot of personal opinions to make her argument. At one point, Merrill shares that a friend at a Fortune 500 company struggled to give a new employee adequate feedback in a remote setting, noting that no one wants to give bad news over Zoom. Sure, no one wants to give bad news, ever, but this is a classic example of management needing to do precisely what is often called upon the lower status and lower-wage employees: be flexible, adapt, and rise to the occasion. Learn some new skills and give the employee the appropriate feedback, no matter the medium.
Merrill also suggests that without people being present for “extra” work, like planning birthday parties and quick meetings, remote employees simply won’t be as much a part of the company culture. That can be true, if, of course, people in the office don’t work to integrate everyone. Does that take a little extra effort and changing how things used to be? Sure. But again, it’s the responsibility of management to make sure workspaces keep up with changing times.
Also, it’s worth pointing out that management could hire people in human resource or similar roles to prioritize things like company celebrations, mentorship opportunities, and so on. Adding in these perhaps subjective and shifting standards for “extras” puts an unfair burden on employees, especially when these tasks are in addition to their actual jobs. Also worth considering that workers who are marginalized may feel an extra burden to “prove” themselves by going above and beyond these sorts of tasks, leading to a potentially imbalanced labor output.
The Washingtonian staff bravely went public and announced their one-day strike, messages of which quickly gained traction on Twitter.
The text reads: “As members of the Washingtonian editorial staff, we want our CEO to understand the risks of not valuing our labor. We are dismayed by Cathy Merrill’s public threat to our livelihoods. We will not be publishing today.”
And here’s a moving visual of all of those tweets together.
In the bigger picture, media burnout is very real. Writers (including people who are both staff and freelance) have been mentally and intellectually engaging with trauma, unpredictability, and rapidly changing topics for months. Writers are expected to bounce between topics for quick coverage, write with accuracy, and stomach the emotional weight of covering topics many people prefer to turn away from. Merrill’s op-ed would feel off base even in reference to a different industry, but in a time when media is increasingly talking about the welfare of editorial staff and the very real reckoning the industry must face in terms of labor, protection, and the well-being of employees, Merrill’s message hits an extra sore sport.