As many as 80 percent of journalists who were laid off during the Covid-19 pandemic were forced to resign, opt for voluntary retirements, or be terminated from their positions by their news organisations, according to a report by the Press Council of India. Only 37 percent received severance pay.

The report was prepared after an inquiry panel of the council probed widespread job losses in the news industry following the first Covid wave. A total of 51 journalists from 17 news organisations across English, Hindi, Marathi, Bengali languages and 12 journalist unions and associations deposed before the committee. 

While journalists were declared as “essential workers”, little was done to implement it in spirit, noted the report while pointing to serious lapses on the part of authorities as well as news organisations.

The government had declared the media as essential service in March 2020 and the ministry of labour and employment had published an advisory asking all employers to not terminate the services of employees or reduce their wages. But this directive was ignored by most media companies, and they showed “scant respect” to the centre’s directive, the report noted.

The report was prepared by a subcommittee that had to be constituted twice due to the expiry of term and work being hampered due to the pandemic. It had received some data and responses from media outlets in its first term, and in its second term, it decided to gather information through letters to state labour commissioners, a press release followed by an online form, and public hearings in Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata. The first subcommittee was formed in December 2020, and the final report was signed on August 28 this year.

The retrenchments, and testimonials

Around 2,500 journalists were retrenched during the pandemic as per independent estimates by former PCI member Balwinder Singh Jammu and independent journalist Cyril Sam, the report said. The actual figures are likely to be higher as their data is restricted largely to the English language media.

Only 25 percent of the journalists who deposed before the committee said that they received formal emails from their companies about retrenchments, while nearly 75 percent said that all communications about it were oral. Nearly all of them narrated a similar experience. 

At the in-person hearings, 80 percent of journalists claimed they were “forced to resign” and did not receive any advance notice or formal communication about salary cuts and layoffs.

Independent journalist Kavitha Iyer, who was retrenched from Indian Express’s Mumbai bureau on July 27, 2020, after spending 18 years at the publication, said she was informed at a meeting that she would “have to resign” and accept the relieving letter or be terminated. The then associate editor at Indian Express was also asked to leave her phone outside the meeting chamber. 

The report also cited an email she sent to her colleagues in 2020. She had written that had she been informed even a few days in advance, “explaining that the inevitable is about to happen, that this is a business decision with no bearing on the work I do, I would have still been unhappy to exit, but would have retained my pride in this organisation and its commitment to humanity. Sadly, we are all now a little less human and a little more virus”.

Deepak Turbhekar, a photographer then employed with Bennett Coleman’s Mumbai Mirror, was asked to resign in January 2021 by the HR over a WhatsApp call. “I ignored the first request for resignation and was subsequently harassed multiple times a day over a period of few weeks on WhatsApp calls,” the report quoted him as saying to the committee.         

Turbhekar reportedly broke down before the committee when he spoke about his financial condition and about struggling financially for three years.      

“He was paid one month’s salary as compensation by the publication after having worked for it for 16 years. He used up the PF money to repay his home loan in Mumbai and surrendered his insurance for a mortgage. Further, he was forced to sell his wife’s jewellery to support his elder daughter’s education. He has a younger son studying in third standard,” said the report, further quoting Turbhekar as saying that he doesn’t have money to buy equipment for photography and he is no longer doing news photography as it is not sustainable.            

In an open letter on LinkedIn to news organisations on August 3, 2020, Ashish Rukhaiyar, who was laid off from The Hindu in June that year, said that reporters were sacked on the phone, and some called to the office and asked to submit their resignations on the spot.

“They were threatened that if they do not resign, they would lose out on payouts they are entitled to under law. There was absolutely no method in this madness. No memos, no performance-related warnings, no red flags in appraisals” the letter is quoted as saying in the report.

Nearly 80 percent of those who deposed were from three major publishers – 19 from Bennett Coleman, 14 from HT Media and eight from The Hindu, mainly based out of Delhi and Mumbai. 

Response from media outlets to first round

The PCI sent a two-part questionnaire to The Telegraph, Hindustan Times, Sakal Times, Gomantak Times, Vikatan, Times Group, The Hindu, Daily Etemaad, The Siasat and Business Standard on March 15, 2021.    

Part 1 of the questionnaire was concerned with shutdowns, retrenchments, job losses, retirements, contract terminations, and resignations during the pandemic. It asked for the strength of the employees, scope of salary cuts, and information on departmental restructuring. Meanwhile, Part 2 was related to the impact of Covid on journalists – how many employees tested positive, organisational protocols, provision for PPEs. 

The Telegraph and the Times Group in their reply said that the matter of journalists’ exit or termination concerned the employee and the employer and was “beyond the jurisdiction” of the PCI. 

Sakal Times and Gomantak Times said that the employees “resigned voluntarily” and that their print editions were closed permanently. They did not mention the number of journalists affected. 

Vikantak stated that “100 employees resigned voluntarily” and one employee who was retrenched on July 8, 2020, had raised a dispute under the Industrial Dispute Act.      

The Hindu said that it had closed its Mumbai edition in July 2020 and didn’t mention the number of journalists affected. Meanwhile, Business Standard and Hindustan Times had replied that they had complied with legal obligations and an employee with grievances could approach the appropriate forum. 

Hindustan Times had also said that print media is “on the brink of an imminent collapse, which shall necessarily result in the loss of even more jobs and may also cause irrecoverable loss and damage to print media”.  

Impact on journalists, and essential workers directive ignored 

“The retrenchments emotionally affected 40 (80 percent) journalists who deposed before the committee. Retrenchments also impacted the self-worth and the confidence of 40 (80 percent) journalists. Depression was reported by 30 (60 percent) journalists and 27 (54 percent) experienced social withdrawal. Senior journalists, in particular, were emotionally most affected. This was also witnessed in physical hearings where many senior journalists experienced emotional turmoil and were moved to tears,” the report said.

Journalists were working extended hours on the frontlines, including hospitals, crematoria and newsrooms, without safety gear and institutional support. According to the NWMI, 626 journalists died in the line of duty. The report cited Newslaundry and Caravan reports to say that at least two newsrooms emerged as Covid hotspots spreading the virus through their communities.

“The reasoning for including the news media in the ‘essential workers’ category was a recognition that the circulation of news and information is especially very important during a crisis period when people are struggling to cope with the changing pandemic situation on a daily basis, and when rumour mills in the unofficial channels of information are clouding people’s understanding. However, we have to record that this ‘essential workers’ directive was ignored by most of the media companies, and they showed scant respect to the Union government’s directive, firing and retrenching journalists at will,” the report stated.

“The poor job security for journalists made them particularly vulnerable during the Covid-19 period where some managements appeared to use the pandemic financial crisis as an excuse to downsize employment levels much beyond what could be justified by their financial requirements,” the report said.

Recommendations: From contracts to insurance to awareness

Journalists and their unions who deposed before the committee highlighted that normal employment terms like written contracts, health insurance, gratuity payments, are not present in the media industry “thus allowing a hire-and-fire regime”.

The panel urged the government as well as industry bodies to introduce a model contract for journalists with “certain mandatory clauses which may inter alia include minimum tenure of service – 7-10 years – provision of giving PF, Gratuity, ESI in applicable cases, provision for leave, yearly increment in salary etc.”

It said there is a need for the centre to continue the mapping of journalist retrenchments annually. “As we have seen, an unnaturally high level of job losses has an adverse impact on the quality of our information ecosystem and freedom of expression; and regular monitoring will help us deal with the problem more effectively,” it said.

Freedom of press will be compromised if journalists do not have job security, it said.

The panel recommended that journalists be provided with insurance against events such as natural disasters or global pandemics, fast- track pending labour disputes, easy access to compensation and benefits which are not given to journalists who are not “accredited” with the government, and steps to protect journalists’ mental health.

It also underlined the need for journalists to be made aware of their rights, and for a checklist that can help them identify commonly misleading clauses in employment contracts.

A large number of journalists and unions had filed complaint letters as well as legal proceedings before labour commissioners and courts, but a tardy response perhaps demoralised them further, it noted. 

Small teams can do great things. All it takes is a subscription. Subscribe now and power Newslaundry’s work.