I disagree.
WA subscribers have to visit another site, The reviews won’t be integrated into searchable database that they have paid for. God only knows how long free access to the reviews will be allowed.
The best thing for a WA subscriber would unquestionably be that Galloni finish up the report and hand it over to WA as per usual.
IMO the big “screw you” was in how TWA treated AG (based on public statements by LP-B).
It may well be that Galloni was treated so poorly that he decided that this was his only option.
Short of him being fired, though, I don’t see how that lessens his obligations to his readership.
It’s clear that TWA demanded a change AG’s employment agreement, that’s public record. At that point does his responsibility to TWA (and the subscribers) end? I’d say it ends once his agreement with TWA is terminated, which has passed already.
If he was terminated then he holds no obligations.
If he decided to quit then he is obliged to finish up any work that was promised and pending at the time he tendered his resignation. Unless, of course, WA told him it wasn’t necessary to do so.
This, however, gets into details we don’t know. If we have to speculate on unknown scenarios to say AG screwed anybody, I’d prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt. Particularly given the obviously antagonistic original statement by LP-B about writers being “a dime a dozen” and that AG is making the reviews available to everybody.
You are wrong. The Sonoma reviews were not on the WA editorial calendar for 2013. This was simply another misstatement by RP that led (intentionally or unintentionally) to the impression that Antonio somehow reneged on these reviews. He did not.
Note that the WA editorial calendar for 2013 still includes articles by Antonio in every issue:
What you say is, I guess, plausible. I don’t know that it is likely, though.
Galloni has already stated that this was a resignation, not a termination of employment.
I can’t imagine why the WA would turn down an offer from him to finish up his pending projects as per the previous working arrangement.
I guess that he might have suggested that to WA and been told that he’d have to agree to have these unfinished projects covered by the new WA terms. Seems to me that he would have taken the opportunity to mention that in his summary of this incident. All we have there (and according to him) is that he proposed new terms to cover these unfinished matters. He makes no mention of WA doing the same.
Bruce, not only did it not appear in the calendar, Parker himself posted on Valentine’s Day that the Sonoma reviews were not making issue 205. It’s on the forum.
A lot of talk about unprofessional-ism has been tossed around about Galloni not “finishing” his work with TWA, but we know absolutely nothing of his contract at all. That’s extremely unfair. I for one believe Galloni got screwed as he’s not the owner of TWA, LPB and her mystery investors are, and Galloni did a hell of lot more for the publication from the content side than she ever did (at last call, he covered 33% of the reviews in 2012). Last time I check, it was pretty close to 100% content in TWA.
I’m pretty sure that the contracted writers of TWA own intellectual property over their reviews (I thought I read that during the fall out, someone correct me if I’m wrong), so Galloni “taking his ball and going home” are as fair play as any move he could have made.
This has nothing to do with deadlines, real or imagined.
Did he or did he not start work on a Sonoma report while still employed as a WA independent contractor, and with the understanding that he was doing so for a future WA release?
This is an honest question, as I genuinely don’t know.
But everything I’ve seen, including Galloni’s own words on the subject, lead me to believe that this is so.
If so, then I think he has an obligation to tie up this loose end to the satisfaction of his previous employers (his real employers… that being, the people who pay to read the WA).
I don’t understand your extreme reaction. Galloni’s report will be available free for everyone, including WA subscribers. He isn’t depriving them of anything. Are you arguing that he should only let WA subscribers read it? What’s the point? The days of getting a great deal on the “best” wines as a subscriber are long gone. Retailers usually update their prices within minutes of a singificant new critic report…
Again, I don’t see the relevance of this.
If he agreed to take on the project for WA and started it, then he should finish it up. I don’t think he needs to continue tasting wines (he mentions having more wines to taste), but a report on what he tasted and learned from producers up through the day he tendered his resignation is in order.
A lot of talk about unprofessional-ism has been tossed around about Galloni not “finishing” his work with TWA, but we know absolutely nothing of his contract at all. That’s extremely unfair.
The claim of unprofessionalism is not thrown about lightly.
It’s true that we don’t know the terms of his contract. But a number of people, including Galloni, have spoken about the matter publically. I use those pronouncements (discounting those that seem to be in dispute) to make the claim.
I for one believe Galloni got screwed as he’s not the owner of TWA, LPB and her mystery investors are, and Galloni did a hell of lot more for the publication from the content side than she ever did (at last call, he covered 33% of the reviews in 2012). Last time I check, it was pretty close to 100% content in TWA.
I empathize with Galloni over the fact that things didn’t work out well for him.
Again, though, I fail to see the relevance with regard to his obligations to the WA subscribership.
I’m pretty sure that the contracted writers of TWA own intellectual property over their reviews (I thought I read that during the fall out, someone correct me if I’m wrong), so Galloni “taking his ball and going home” are as fair play as any move he could have made.
Not sure what you mean by “fair play”. I have no knowledge that his actions are an abrogation of a legally binding contract, and certainly have made no claims to that effect.
From a professional standpoint I think he could have handled things better.
And I don’t understand why you view my reaction as extreme.
-He agreed to take on a project for an employer.
-Part way through he decided that he no longer wanted to work for the employer.
This is my understanding of the facts. I may be wrong here, and would welcome anyone showing me where I’m in error.
If the two statements above are correct, though, then I think that a sense of professionalism requires that he tie things up in a manner suitable to his employers, consistent with the terms that existed when he initially agreed to take on the work.
Bruce, I’m getting the impression you are steadfast in your opinion b/c you are a guy that will play things out even if they were going your way, and I greatly applaud you for that.
The only obligations he has are those that are contractually specified. Whether he started work or not on the Sonoma report is irrelevant if he had not yet been compensated for that work, and was not otherwise contractually committed to it. And no obligation can even be inferred since it was not on the editorial calendar.
-Part way through, his employer changed ownership, and the new owner notified him the terms of his employment would be changed if he was to continue with his project.
yes, maybe so
but we can’t speculate about AG’s professionalism and is indebtedness to TWA since we don’t have access to the contracts or the transcripts to their top secret club meetings
That’s certainly one way to go.
Though to my mind “He fulfilled all contractual obligations” doesn’t make for the most stirring of epitaphs.
Whether he started work or not on the Sonoma report is irrelevant if he had not yet been compensated for that work or contractually committed to it. And no commitment can even be inferred since it was not on the editorial calendar.
I don’t know his contractual commitments.
But on his website and with regard to this matter Galloni writes: “When I began tasting Sonoma wines earlier this year, I realized my article would be far larger than I had originally anticipated. On January 15, I informed The Wine Advocate’s Editor in Chief, Lisa Perrotti-Brown, I would not be able to write a comprehensive article in time for their February issue that would do full justice to the region and the extraordinary diversity of its wines.”
