April 20, 2024

Media Decoder Blog: Washington Post Says Pay Model Will Start This Summer

The Washington Post will soon begin charging readers for access to its Web site, adopting a model that has taken hold at hundreds of newspapers as they attempt to make money from their online traffic.

The Post announced the change on Monday, saying it would take effect in the summer. It did not announce any details about pricing, but said readers would be allowed to read 20 articles or multimedia features free each month.

“News consumers are savvy; they understand the high cost of a top quality newsgathering operation and the importance of maintaining the kind of in-depth reporting for which The Post is known,” Katharine Weymouth, the paper’s publisher, said in a statement. “Our digital package is a valuable one and we are going to ask our readers to pay for it and help support our newsgathering as they have done for many years with the print edition.”

Like the so-called paywall plans at many other papers, The Post’s includes various exceptions for readers to continue to gain access to articles free of charge. Students, teachers, school administrators, government employees and military personnel — a large part of The Post’s traditional audience in and around Washington — will continue to have unlimited access to the site. Articles viewed via links from Google, Facebook and elsewhere on the Internet will also not count against a reader’s monthly total.

The Post is the latest and one of the largest American papers to institute an online paywall. The model has been used by The Wall Street Journal and The Financial Times for years, and The New York Times introduced a version of it in 2011. The Pew Research Center, in its annual State of the News Media report, released Monday, said that about 450 papers in the United States have moved to paywalls, more than double the number from the year before.

Debate inside The Washington Post Company may have accounted for its late adoption of the model. Warren E. Buffett, the company’s largest shareholder outside of the Graham family, has been a vocal proponent of paywalls, while Donald E. Graham, its chief executive and chairman, has been less sanguine, saying that the change might drive away its online readers around the country.

Article source: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/washington-post-says-pay-model-will-start-this-summer/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Bucks Blog: Zipcar, Avis and Age Discrimination Against Renters

Zipcar, which often rents to people who are under 21, includes Mini Coopers in its fleet.Mike Segar/Reuters Zipcar, which often rents to people who are under 21, includes Mini Coopers in its fleet.

For those of us who like picking up a Zipcar for a few hours without having to talk to anyone and dislike waiting for the rental car bus or in line, Avis Budget Group’s acquisition of Zipcar is cause for a bit of fear. However the synergies end up benefiting both companies, you have to wonder whether some of them will degrade Zipcar’s service or policies.

Take the age-old rental-car age discrimination issue for instance, which I’ve been complaining about since 1995.

Zipcar manages to find a way to rent to anybody with a decent driving record who is 21 or older and has been driving for at least a year. On many campuses where the company has teamed up with a university, you only have to be 18. There is no surcharge; the company simply includes whatever higher insurance premium it must pay to rent to younger drivers in its hourly or daily rates. (That said, drivers under 21 have less liability coverage, and Zipcar still doesn’t give them — or any of its customers — the ability to buy more. Maybe Avis Budget can fix that.)

Avis, however, rents to young people only if a state forces it to, as New York did in resolving a discrimination suit that ended in 1997. Avis’s response was to impose a surcharge on anyone 18 to 21 years old. It’s currently $52 a day. If you’re 21 to 24, you pay $35 a day extra in the state.

In most other states, Avis bars people under 21 and welcomes the 21- to 24-year-old set with open arms — while charging an extra $28 a day, according to its Web site. (I’d link to it, but the site is antiquated enough that the information isn’t on a page where a link will work.)

Avis makes some exceptions for government employees and members of the military, probably because it would be imprudent to discriminate against them and perhaps also because they spend a lot of money. Oh, and those 21- to 24-year-olds can’t rent minivans, passenger vans or full-size S.U.V.’s, among other vehicles.

I asked Avis Budget whether its policies might change after the merger, but I did not get any replies to my e-mail inquiries. Here’s hoping it doesn’t declare one day that nobody under 25 can use a Zipcar without paying high fees.

As for Zipcar, I asked whether its good influence might help the cause of the under-25 crowd at airports or other Avis Budget locations. Alas, a spokeswoman, Colleen McCormick, wasn’t biting. “Until the acquisition is complete we’re really not able to speculate on what might or might not change with either of the two companies involved,” she said in an e-mail message. John Barrows, an Avis Budget spokesman, sent me a similar note.

What would you like Avis Budget to learn from Zipcar? And what, if anything, could Zipcar learn from Avis Budget?

Article source: http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/zipcar-avis-and-age-discrimination-against-renters/?partner=rss&emc=rss

Strike in Great Britain as Austerity Measures are Extended by Government

Courts, schools, hospitals, airports and government offices could all be hit by the strike, which has come to be seen as an emblem of resistance to government plans to squeeze public sector pensions as part of its plans to reduce debt.

News reports spoke of picket lines being set up outside public buildings while workers planned rallies and demonstrations across Britain. Some of the first workers to strike were in Liverpool, where tunnels under the River Mersey were closed because of the stoppage. But, in the early hours of the day, the likely overall level of participation remained unclear.

The chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, said Tuesday that because of the slowdown in the euro zone, British economic growth this year and next would be slower than forecast in March and “debt will not fall as fast as we’d hoped.”

He added that Britain could avoid a recession next year only if the euro zone found a solution to its current crisis.

“We’ll do whatever we can to protect Britain from this debt storm,” Mr. Osborne told a packed Parliament. “If the rest of Europe heads into a recession, it may be hard to avoid one here in the U.K.”

The strike on Wednesday was called by the biggest public sector unions in Britain and was expected to cause major delays at airports and hospitals and shut some schools.

More than two million people, including teachers and other government employees, are expected to go on strike over a dispute with the government about pensions, according to the Trades Union Congress.

In Parliament, Mr. Osborne called on the unions to reconsider the strike action and return to the negotiating table, asking why they were “putting jobs at risk.”

“Call off the strike,” he said.

But Len McCluskey, general secretary of the trade union Unite, criticized Mr. Osborne’s economic strategy and compared him to “a pilot who has put his plane into a tailspin and is now wrestling desperately with the controls as the aircraft rapidly loses height.”

The government said British households, which are already squeezed by higher food and electricity prices, would have to endure an additional two years of austerity measures, now until 2017. The economy is growing slower than forecast, hurting Mr. Osborne’s initial 2010 plan to eliminate the budget deficit within five years.

It would also require Britain to borrow an additional £111 billion, or $172 billion, through 2015, a step Mr. Osborne was eager to avoid. The austerity measures would now drag on far beyond the next general election, currently scheduled for 2015.

The British economy will grow 0.9 percent this year, less than the 1.7 percent predicted earlier, and 0.7 percent next year, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast Tuesday. The agency predicted that the economy would then pick up and grow 2.1 percent in 2013. Debt as a share of gross domestic product would peak at 78 percent in the fiscal year ending in 2015, higher than the 71 percent initially predicted.

Amid fierce criticism from the opposition Labour Party, Mr. Osborne said Tuesday that he would stick to his austerity plan, which includes more than 600,000 job cuts in the public sector and other spending curbs, but that it would still take longer for the debt load to shrink.

Because of that, the government said it would cap pay increases for public sector workers at 1 percent for two years after the end of the current pay freeze.

The step was part of a small set of measures presented Tuesday, which also includes an increase in a bank tax, to generate extra revenue to invest in infrastructure projects and to fight youth unemployment.

But it added to the anger of workers’ representatives, who said the government was now not only “raiding” pensions but wages as well.

Howard Archer, chief economist for Britain at IHS Global Insight, said Mr. Osborne lacked the room for maneuver to offer any investments or tax cuts that could help the economic recovery.

“The economy is staring recession in the face again; he has no money to spend and events in the euro zone pose major downside risks over which he has no control,” Mr. Archer said.

The Labour Party said the new forecast meant that Mr. Osborne’s strategy to cut the budget “is in tatters” and that “plan A has failed colossally.” The Labour Party called on Mr. Osborne to “change course before it’s too late” and scale back an aggressive debt reduction plan that was choking off the economy.

But Mr. Osborne argued that an early adoption of the deficit plan last year helped Britain to keep its borrowing costs low and avoid problems faced by Greece or Italy, where borrowing costs became unsustainable.

Unlike the United States or the members of the euro zone, Britain already has a far-reaching austerity plan along with interest rates at record-low levels. It also has its own currency, which helps keep British exports to the euro zone relatively inexpensive.

When Germany’s 10-year bond yields last week rose above Britain’s for the first time in more than two years, it was widely interpreted by the British government as a vote of confidence in Britain’s budget reduction efforts.

But the damped outlook released Tuesday by the budget office — combined with warnings Monday by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that Britain might fall back into a recession — put pressure on Mr. Osborne’s plan.

Mervyn A. King, governor of the Bank of England, also warned Monday that Britain was increasingly threatened by the crisis in the euro zone.

Alan Cowell contributed reporting.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/world/europe/great-britain-strike-austerity-measures.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Public Unions Take On Boss to Win Big Pensions

Then Jim Righeimer, a conservative activist and real estate developer, jumped into the race last year.

The city was on the road to insolvency, he warned, because public employee unions had pressured politicians into handing over generous salaries and pensions. The police chief received $298,000 a year in total compensation, Mr. Righeimer noted. The deputy fire chief had retired with a pension of more than $182,000 a year.

City workers weren’t fans of Mr. Righeimer, who had been critical of public unions for years. Local police and firefighter groups started mailing leaflets and towing a billboard around town attacking him, implying he had skipped out on numerous debts. Public employees spent more than $100,000 opposing him, and six unions from neighboring regions spent another $33,000 endorsing his opponents.

“They try to drag you through the mud so bad that everyone else says, ‘I don’t ever want these guys as enemies, I’ll just leave them alone,’ ” said Mr. Righeimer, who still managed to win a council seat.

Costa Mesa, population 110,000, is California in miniature. For years, public employee unions across the state have often used their influence — sometimes behind the scenes but occasionally with public, hardball campaigns — to push for improved worker pay and benefits. They have exercised power beyond their numbers by donating money to lawmakers, burnishing candidates’ credentials with endorsements and supplying volunteers during elections.

 Public employee unions are hardly the only group involved in bare-knuckles politics. Businesses lobby fiercely and executives make hefty campaign donations.

But public workers have a unique relationship with elected officials, because government employees are effectively negotiating with bosses whom they can campaign to vote out of office if they don’t get what they want. Private unions, in contrast, don’t usually have the power to fire their members’ employers.

Even in recent years, as economic troubles have worsened, benefits for some government workers have grown. In 2008, for instance, lifeguards in Laguna Beach started receiving increased retirement benefits as the state’s economy began to slow. The next year, the town’s chief lifeguard retired at age 57, with a $113,000-a-year pension after 36 years on the job.

Lawmakers in both political parties have often acceded to unions’ requests to avoid political confrontations or to curry favor. They have pushed difficult choices into the future.

But now, with the expenses of past promises coming due, the cost of deferred decision-making is mounting. California alone needs to begin devoting an additional $28 billion a year to state and local public pensions to remedy an existing shortfall, according to one nonpartisan study — and nationwide, estimates of such deficits reach into the trillions over the next few decades.

“We had no idea what we were doing,” said Tony Oliveira, who as a supervisor in Kings County, in central California, voted to increase employees’ benefits, and now is on the board of the state’s enormous pension fund. “This was probably the worst public policy decision in the state’s history. But everyone kept saying there was plenty of money. And no one wants to be responsible if all the cops quit to get paid more in the next town.”

Public employee unions, in their defense, say politicians have unfairly made them into simplistic bogeymen, responsible for problems that have myriad causes. Not all government workers receive generous pensions, they note. A public worker enrolled in the state’s largest pension fund who retired in 2008 with more than 30 years of service received a pension of $66,828 a year, on average, and a retiree with 20 to 25 years of service received around $34,872. Public workers who retire with fewer years on the job receive even less.

Moreover, unions note that they have improved millions of lives and are standing up for workers, who are mostly middle class, at a time when many families are losing ground financially.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=11fe2371fc185a2d32ad486930360e94