The Boston Globe is hemorrhaging cash. Without making drastic cuts, the paper will be forced to close. With a projected loss this year of $85 million dollars, the Globe has been negotiating with its four major unions to accept wage and benefit cuts. Last week, the largest union, the Boston Guild, said no. With this impasse, the Boston Globe has imposed a 23% pay cut on all union members, to which the union responded by filing a claim with the National Labor Relations Board.
Wow. Talk about losing sight of a vision. How did everyone get themselves into this train wreck? Where was the leadership at the Globe that allowed this chasm between employees and management to grow so large that it would take a construction company to build a bridge big enough to connect both sides again? And why are the union employees risking the paper and their jobs? As an outsider, this showdown is ludicrous.
But scratch beneath the surface and let’s see the forces at play here.
First, it seems everyone has been influenced by a human decision making bias in the behavioral economics world called “loss aversion.” The Globe employees are so determined to avoid any option associated with loss that they are willing to risk losing everything. This desire to avoid losing leads people to do foolish things. Why would employees force their company that is already lingering on the brink of financial collapse into a court case with the NLRB? How will that save anyone’s job, let alone the paper? It won’t. It’s just a natural reaction to a situation that smacks of loss.
Second, it seems that a herd mentality has taken over. And when there’s a herd, there’s group polarization and no room for any balanced viewpoint. When people who share a belief get together to discuss that belief, they reach conclusions more extreme than they held as individuals. Can you just picture the scene in a union meeting? “Those jerks!” “Yeah! They think they can take money out of our pocket.” “Not a chance!” And so it escalates.
We also need to wonder what happened to the leadership at the Globe. On the one hand, we could point to the loyal employees who have worked for the Globe for 20, 30, and 40 years, and easily assume that it must be a great place to work based on those numbers alone. But was it a great place or were the benefits so great – salary, pensions, health, retirement, lifetime job guarantees – that they became golden handcuffs? If the leaders had created a place where people wanted to work and stopped bribing people to work there, they wouldn’t be in this predicament right now. I don’t care how bad the newspaper business is, if the workforce felt engaged and empowered to save it, they would. Unfortunately, they feel neither.
Finally, cognitive dissonance is working its magic to assure that no one will learn a thing from this entire mess. According to this human influence, we innately hate being wrong. We would much rather make an excuse rather than accept responsibility. Welcome to the Boston Globe fiasco. Neither side wants to be wrong or admit fault, so they continue excusing their actions and shifting blame to the other side. An immaturity in interpersonal relations that should have been left on the playground years ago.
And so the drama goes. While I don’t wish the demise of the Boston Globe, without addressing these underlying issues and influences, it is inevitable. And anything both sides agree upon (or are forced to agree upon) before such demise will be merely ducktape on the crevices.