Britain's Battling Press

In Western nations, most newspaper editors do not belong to trade unions even though their reporters may. Reason: editors are considered part of management; besides, they usually fear that union membership might compromise their political independence. In Britain some editors join out of sympathy for the working class, but their numbers are small: less than 10% of the editors belong to the National Union of Journalists, the labor organization that represents most of the country's newspaper workers. In recent weeks, however, an N.U.J. drive against the high-profit, low-wage provincial papers outside London has threatened to change that situation. What began as a pay dispute on the "provincials" has ballooned into a national row over newspaper economics, editors' rights and the specter of censorship by labor.

Backed by its increasingly militant 28,000 members, the N.U.J. this month swung into action against the publishers of the provincial papers--"the last Scrooges of England," as one unionist called them. The union has demanded 19%% to 39% pay increases on minimum salaries that now range from $70 to $91 per week. More important, it has demanded a closed shop, which would make it the sole representative of all British journalists, including reluctant editors.

Pressing its case, the N.U.J. has ordered typesetters and printers to "black," or refuse to print, stories by non-N.U.J. journalists. As a result, blank spaces have whitened the pages of the provincials, and publishers have been quick to retaliate. The Kentish Times summarily sacked 60 employees for "blacking" its non-N.U.J. local correspondents.

No Guarantees. N.U.J. leaders maintain that their bid to establish closed shops is a tactic designed only to strengthen the union and hike wages --not to control editorial policy. But the publishers and many of their editors, including Alastair Hetherington of the highly respected Guardian, contend that what is at stake is freedom of the press. They claim that hi the past, labor pressure has forced the removal of articles critical of unions. Now, editors fear, in a closed-shop situation their jobs would depend on what they say in print. Said the London Times: "If the editor can be required to be a member of a trade union against his will, his independence is thereafter circumscribed by union rulings."

Editors are also getting heat from Whitehall. Harold Wilson's Labor government has proposed legislation that would permit closed shops in all industries, including the press. Previously, the editors argue, specific guarantees against union encroachment on editorial policy were written into the law. The Monopolies and Mergers Act, for instance, stated that nothing was "to interfere with the free flow of news and information." No such guarantees are included in the new bill.

Earlier this month a delegation led by Denis Hamilton, editor in chief of the Tunes Newspapers, Ltd., and Hetherington of the Guardian visited Employment Secretary Michael Foot. Their purpose: to ensure that editors stay free of the closed-shop proviso. Foot, a veteran Labor leftist, former journalist and member of the N.U.J., was unmoved.

For now, positions on both sides of the dispute are stiffening. Union officials claim that their "blacking" orders are effective on 95% of the provincial papers, and will continue. The editors and publishers, meanwhile, are determined to protect their prerogatives at all costs. Said a gloomy Hamilton last week: "There is almost certainly going to have to be a battle."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.