New Statesman, Art Director (maternity cover)

Looking for an Art Director for an initial six-month contract.

The New Statesman is looking for an experienced, enthusiastic and talented Art Director for an initial six-month contract.

The ideal candidate will:

  • Be comfortable working in a fast paced environment of a weekly magazine
  • Have a keen eye for detail and drive for perfection
  • Have the ability to work under pressure effectively on multiple projects
  • Have experience of leading a team
  • Have a interest in current affairs

We are looking for someone with experience of designing across multiple platforms, both in print magazines or newspapers and online. iPad design experience would be an advantage. You should be proficient in Adobe InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator and Quark Express.

The art director is responsible for:

  • Designing front cover on a weekly basis
  • Designing and managing layouts and flat plans
  • Managing the art team and retoucher
  • Managing the art budget
  • Art directing and managing special issues and projects
  • Commissioning cartoons and illustrations
  • Offering design support to other publications within the group
  • Oversight of the New Statesman iPad app

Salary: competitive, dependent on experience.

How to apply

Please send a CV and covering letter to deputy editor Helen Lewis at helen at newstatesman.co.uk with the subject line “Art Director Application”. Please attach any supporting materials as low-res PDFs or include a link to your online portfolio. Alternatively, you can apply by post to Helen Lewis, New Statesman, 7 John Carpenter Street, EC4Y 0AN.

Please include a 300-word appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of the design of the New Statesman magazine and website.

The deadline for applications is 1 August and the contract begins on 15 September

Getty
Show Hide image

How tribunal fees silenced low-paid workers: “it was more than I earned in a month”

The government was forced to scrap them after losing a Supreme Court case.

How much of a barrier were employment tribunal fees to low-paid workers? Ask Elaine Janes. “Bringing up six children, I didn’t have £20 spare. Every penny was spent on my children – £250 to me would have been a lot of money. My priorities would have been keeping a roof over my head.”

That fee – £250 – is what the government has been charging a woman who wants to challenge their employer, as Janes did, to pay them the same as men of a similar skills category. As for the £950 to pay for the actual hearing? “That’s probably more than I earned a month.”

Janes did go to a tribunal, but only because she was supported by Unison, her trade union. She has won her claim, although the final compensation is still being worked out. But it’s not just about the money. “It’s about justice, really,” she says. “I think everybody should be paid equally. I don’t see why a man who is doing the equivalent job to what I was doing should earn two to three times more than I was.” She believes that by setting a fee of £950, the government “wouldn’t have even begun to understand” how much it disempowered low-paid workers.

She has a point. The Taylor Review on working practices noted the sharp decline in tribunal cases after fees were introduced in 2013, and that the claimant could pay £1,200 upfront in fees, only to have their case dismissed on a technical point of their employment status. “We believe that this is unfair,” the report said. It added: "There can be no doubt that the introduction of fees has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of cases brought."

Now, the government has been forced to concede. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Unison’s argument that the government acted unlawfully in introducing the fees. The judges said fees were set so high, they had “a deterrent effect upon discrimination claims” and put off more genuine cases than the flimsy claims the government was trying to deter.

Shortly after the judgement, the Ministry of Justice said it would stop charging employment tribunal fees immediately and refund those who had paid. This bill could amount to £27m, according to Unison estimates. 

As for Janes, she hopes low-paid workers will feel more confident to challenge unfair work practices. “For people in the future it is good news,” she says. “It gives everybody the chance to make that claim.” 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.