AFP: Part-time job, Full-time insecurity

On April 1, management responded to questions raised by two French national trade unions about AFP’s treatment of its stringers, or freelancers, abroad. While France requires media to hire freelance journalists under a special regime that is considered as a permanent labor contract, often nothing similar exists in other countries. While the French freelance journalist status is far from ideal, in particular no guaranteed minimum amount of work, it does provide them access to France’s social security system. It was in this spirit that AFP’s management pledged long ago that it would try as much as possible to use labor contracts and avoid the use of personal service contracts. Management’s statement was a clear repudiation of that pledge.

Management stated that the personal service contract will provide “security and clarity for the Agency and its freelancers”. More so for AFP than freelancers, however, as responsibility for all social charges shifts to the freelancer. If the remuneration is correct freelancers can pay social charges and retirement contributions at normal rates, but from what we’ve heard AFP’s offers have been at a financial disadvantage for freelancers.

A jealous employer

Management’s statement also stated that “AFP only requires exclusivity in its relations with freelancers when it comes to the other big global agencies.” That’s a nice pledge, but one of only limited value, especially when considering management’s extensible view of competition. The example of a text colleague in our Lisbon bureau who we’ve written about previously demonstrates the danger. He was working part time for AFP, and when hired, his managers indicated they recognized he would need to work for other media. Portugal, like France, regulates this situation via a national journalist convention as well as individual contracts, and the exclusivity should have been only in relation to AFP’s direct competitors. That didn’t stop AFP from firing him in 2023 for working on a day off as a fixer for France Televisions, which is a client that AFP can in no way honestly present as a direct competitor.

The Lisbon Appeals Court found that AFP overreached by firing the journalist: that in effect it was only employing him part time but prohibiting him from exercising his profession for anyone else, thus violating his right to work. The appeals court went to the heart of the matter of what AFP was doing. Portugal’s Supreme Court focused instead on the fact that the journalist had not respected his contractual and conventional obligations of notification, and earlier this year validated definitively his firing.

Regularization, but only on a temporary basis

Let’s now take the case of a Bulgarian colleague. She worked as a stringer for nearly two decades, with much of that time actually working full-time for AFP out of our bureau. This was the type of illegal situation that management said in its statement it was trying to “regularize” by offering contracts. For the Bulgarian journalist, it coincided with her colleague retiring. After a bit of prodding, AFP did indeed offer the stringer a contract, but just for six months and at a much lower salary than the journalist she replaced even though she is qualified to do both text and video. The explanation, apparently, is that AFP no longer needs even one full-time journalist in Bulgaria as she was told that she’d have to work for other media as well!

These two cases show a glaring incoherence in AFP’s position about journalists having outside collaborations. We consider it validation of our view that the Lisbon journalist’s outside collaboration was just a pretext to get rid of him for his trade union role. It is a clear indication of the extreme precarity of many of our colleagues, whether they are freelancers or part-time. At any moment AFP can take issue with the outside media work they do in order to make ends meet.

The Bulgarian journalist’s case raises other questions about multiple collaborations. While she was encouraged to work for other media, AFP still expected her to give priority to the Agency, especially in the case of breaking news. Clearly, this would have been nearly impossible in practice: most other employers – media or not – would not like an employee disappearing at the drop of a hat. Moreover, AFP expected the journalist to constantly carry out monitoring of the local media. How she could conscientiously do this while working for someone else was not explained. We see here again that AFP is trying to dictate unreasonable conditions: what is effectively full-time employment for part-time pay. And only for a limited time as well! Is it surprising she refused?

These two cases took place outside of France, but that doesn’t mean that we’re spared. Just consider the situation in our bureaus in other French cities. The small number of journalists means that they have a large number of evenings where they are responsible for monitoring the news in their region and the office email. AFP does not consider this work and only pays a small indemnity for it. SUD attacked this in court and lost as a judge considered having to spend an evening watching news shows, monitoring social media accounts and the bureau’s email account doesn’t keep a journalist from spending a normal evening with their family. Obviously, that isn’t the opinion of numerous journalists who complain they can’t maintain a normal work-life balance. Management has been aware of this issue for years but has only taken limited steps to resolve this issue.

Staff or super-stringer?

Or take the recent innovation in response to a number of our regular French freelancers suing AFP to get a real contract. Management has started offering part-time contracts that correspond to the amount of work they had been doing for the Agency. But it seems to regret that these journalists – previously available 24/7 for AFP – now have scheduled working days. AFP wants them to shift these days around at the last moment to meet the news flow and AFP’s needs. How can they work for anyone else in such conditions?

These examples, in France and abroad, show management rhetoric about being a benevolent employer risks becoming a bad joke. When we talk about the Agency’s values they need to be applied around the world. We’ve seen too many cases of AFP citing the need to respect local law as a means to avoid doing the right thing, including when doing the right thing doesn’t contravene local law.

The investigation into working conditions that will soon be launched is an opportunity for staff to express their concerns about precarity and demand better treatment throughout the world starting with rational and equitable HR policies.

We can’t always count on the law and courts to push AFP to do what is right. We need to better defend our working conditions ourselves. With the changes AFP has undergone in recent years we need to install decent minimum conditions across our international network. Even more so given more changes on the way as AFP faces additional financial difficulties given the grim economic outlook.

It is the respect of values – whether journalistic or dignified treatment and working conditions – that will be our best ally in the face of future political turbulence that puts our jobs, security and liberties at risk. We’ll need to defend our right to have a family and personal life along with carrying out work that is critical for society. Join SUD if you want to be part of a trade union that works tirelessly to defend staff, their working conditions and AFP’s public interest mission.

Paris, April 24, 2025
SUD-AFP (Solidarity-Unity-Democracy)