Proposed US labour law changes could see the 'unsocial hours' which are the lot of every journalist, classed as overtime.
And Newspaper Association of America president and chief executive David Chavern says this could result in unintended consequences that will ultimately hurt current employees.
Chavern points to a Department of Labor proposal to increase the "salaries test" level - used to determine if an employee is eligible for overtime - from US$23,660 a year currently to US$50,440. The figure, last changed in 2004, defines the salary employees such as managers, supervisors and professionals need to earn to be exempt under the Federal Labor Standards Act. The 113 per cent increase takes the threshold to nearly $10,000 and $15,000 higher than what is mandated by the state laws in California and New York, he says.
"What works in New York City or San Francisco doesn't necessarily work in Rapid City, South Dakota or Ames, Iowa," says Chavern. And while he agrees the current salaries test should be increased, "addressing a decade of inaction with an immediate 113 per cent increase ... will result in unintended consequences that will ultimately hurt current employees."
An NAA survey estimated that raising the salaries of exempt employees would cost the industry more than US$130 million annually. The increase would also impact local retail advertising customers, with retailers experiencing a US$745 million impact with more than two million employees affected.
"Given the well-documented financial challenges of our industry, many newspapers will not be able to meet the new standard," he says. Most newspapers surveyed said that they would either have to replace full-time employees with part-timers or convert current exempt employees to an hourly wage. Employees would see a reduction in benefits and workplace flexibility and would be required to fill out timesheets, "particularly challenging for journalists and editors who need flexibility to cover news in their communities".
A change must sustainably meet the needs of both the employees and businesses, be reasonable and phased-in, "but a rule that goes too far, too fast, will simply force businesses to restructure operations to avoid unsustainable costs".
He urges recalibration of the rule into "one that is practicable, particularly in light of continued headwinds in our nation's economy".