Velvet Coffin

Do you love arguing with those around you? Have you always wanted to stick it to The Man? The PD Guild wants you! We are seeking motivated individuals to fill two openings on our representative committee. One has the official title of secretary/treasurer, but don’t let that scare you. Both jobs essentially entail taking part in negotiations with the company and in strategy sessions with your fellow committee members. Jokes aside, these positions offer you the opportunity to be more than just a spectator in what goes on around here. The work involves everything from grievances filed on behalf of colleagues to contract negotiations, which will begin in earnest around the first of the year. We are also hoping for ideas on making the Guild a bigger part of everyday life around here. These positions do not require a huge time commitment. You basically will be asked to help when you are available to do so. The heavy lifting will be done by higher-ups in the food chain. If you have an interest, please send a note to vinerunner@sbcglobal.net as soon as possible.

Some of you have raised concerns about the “360″ program in which managers ask you to rate their job performance. Some of you have been informed already that you have been chosen to participate in the program. Others will be notified soon as the deadline to submit answers is Dec. 23. Since the program is voluntary, the Guild is advising its members that you do not have to participate if you do not want to. You will see a place on the forms sent to you where you can opt out. The goal of the program, according to our HR director, is to give editors honest feedback to help improve their job performance. She said the answers are anonymous because neither the editor or anyone else at the PD will have access to individual questionnaires – just a rating as well as written comments, if you choose to submit any. However, since editors self-select which reporters they want to rate them, and the pool of respondents is limited, concerns about how anonymous the program is are legitimate. That’s aside from the issue of program efficacy if editors can choose who they want to receive feedback from. While there’s probably no harm in filling out the forms – which may actually be beneficial in letting editors know the areas in which they can improve – the Guild is advising everyone that it’s an individual choice whether to participate or not.

Bruce Baird on the copy desk was informed today that he is going to be laid off as of Dec. 18. He gave me his permission to announce that, which I’m doing in the spirit of shared loss. I’ve known Bruce going back to our Napa Valley Register days when he was the features editor and I was a reporter on his staff. Besides being a wordsmith and a nice guy, Bruce is one hell of a fly fisherman, and I recall a couple of times when he took me out to the park to try and teach me how to cast a line. Naturally I sucked at it. People are going to wonder how the hell we are going to put out a paper with an ever-shrinking copy desk. The Guild will ask that question of the relevant powers but I encourage you to do the same with your supervisors. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Please join me in wishing Bruce the best.

All,

As my night shift has now come to a close with nary a triple-homicide, I thought I’d take a few moments to share a few thoughts. It’s been a little more than a week since our vote to extend the wage freeze and other related cuts. While that sets the course going into 2010, I think we all are wondering what might be coming our way in the short-term, and in particular, if the company will announce more layoffs. I wish I had a clear answer for you, but I don’t. At our last “official” gathering, company reps said they were planning a couple more layoffs in the near future. But whether that’s a real threat or something else remains to be seen. What hasn’t changed is their stated desire to try and reduce the ranks of “non-content providers,” which we have interpreted as those on the copy desk and in photography. It’s my hope, one shared by many of you, that the wage freeze extension will perhaps forestall those plans. But as of this writing I can’t say if that will be the case.
Before heading off on vacation last week I attended a seminar in Oakland for union stewards to learn more about the role and to discuss strategies for handling issues that arise between union members and management. The meeting was attended by Guild representatives from throughout the Bay Area, and while the news of how things are faring at their papers was mostly depressing, there were glimmers of hope. These include successful organizing efforts at Singleton papers in the East Bay and a fledgling effort to organize freelancers. We also got an update on the new Bay Area News Project involving philanthropist Warren Hellman and UC Berkeley, among others. Carl Hall, a former Chron reporter who now works for the Guild and met with Hellman to pitch the project idea, discussed why the Guild would want to wade into these waters amid perceptions that such an organization might compete with an already tight – and getting tighter – Bay Area news market. The short summary of Hall’s presentation is that the Guild wants to be on the cutting edge of whatever is coming next, as opposed to remaining stuck in concessionary bargaining. Hall said his main request of Hellman was that the Guild be given the opportunity to organize the new group. We can always use more members.
In closing, I’d like to pass along your Guild rights message for the day, which is this: if you are ever called into a meeting with management that you believe may be heading toward some disciplinary action (i.e. a letter in your personnel file, suspension, dismissal, etc.) you can immediately request to have a Guild rep present. Do not wait until after the meeting. It’s in your best interests to have a Guild rep present to assist you going forward with whatever it is you are facing. At the very least, it helps to have another person who’s on your side in the room.
That’s it for now.

By a margin of 70 percent to 30 percent, the Guild voted to extend the wage freeze on a temporary basis into 2010. Thanks to all who went to the polls.
People know where I stood on this issue so it will come as no surprise when I say I think this was the right decision. I believe our number one goal is to try and save jobs. My hope is that this vote will help in that regard. The onus is now on the company to save the two positions they say are equal to the wage freeze amounts we voted to extend. We are also hoping they make good on their stated intent to fill several vacancies in the newsroom.
Beyond that, the Guild has shown, once again, that we are willing to pitch in for the collective good. Contrary to what I’ve heard, the wage cuts supported by Guild members, either on a permanent or temporary basis, do not represent the bare minimum of the choices that were before us. That would have been taking no pay cuts at all – something we could have chosen to do but did not, for the primary reason that we understand the difficult times we are in.
These cuts represent a significant chunk of change given the cost of living on the North Coast and an economy that continues to shrink our collective net worth. You each deserve gratitude for the sacrifices you have made, which in real terms include not just money but your ever-increasing work loads. So from me to you, thanks.

All,

As expected, the company has come back to the Guild asking us to extend the 2.5 percent wage freeze into 2010 and cancellation of merit pay that is scheduled for June. The company asked us to make this cut permanent. We disagreed, and the end result is that should members agree to this, the 2.5 percent will come back to wages at the end of next year, unless the company requests – and we agree to – another extension.
This proposal is therefore identical to the one we agreed to in April. For an exact reading, please see below.
Because we all are presumably familiar with the issues here, your Guild reps believe that we can move forward with a vote later this week without any advance meetings. You are of course welcome to append your thoughts on this site, or reach out personally to one of us for more information.
As Guild chair, I am recommending a yes vote on this proposal, for the primary reason that I believe it shows we are willing to tighten our own belts even more as we hopefully turn the corner on this rotten economy. That’s not to say we haven’t taken our lumps already, because we have. But the Guild is not being singled out for cuts here, and unlike others around the building, we have the power next year to stop the freeze and return that 2.5 percent back to wages. In relative terms, I believe that’s a pretty good deal.
It should also be noted that the company equates 2.5 percent to two FTEs, and that if we turn down their request we could lose those people. That would be in addition to lay offs we have been told could be coming in the next several weeks.
Voting will commence at 9 a.m. on Thursday and conclude at noon Friday. I will send out more reminders. As in the past, you will vote via e-mail to my personal address, which I will resend later in the week.

Derek

Copy of MOU:

This Letter of Understanding is entered into between THE PRESS DEMOCRAT and the CALIFORNIA MEDIA WORKERS GUILD to address the outstanding issue in the LOU of April 2009 wherein the Guild employees voluntarily reduced their wage rate by 2.5% for calendar year 2009.
 
The parties agree to the following:
 
1. The wage reduction of 2.5% implemented April 5, 2009 is continued through calendar year 2010. The parties agree to meet before year end 2010 to negotiate termination or continuation of the wage reduction, and any other conditions to be considered for 2011. Unless a new agreement is negotiated before December 17, 2010 the 2.5% reduction taken April 5, 2009 will be returned to wages effective December 27, 2010.
 
2. The five (5) additional vacation days posted in 2009 in relation to the 2.5% wage cut will be honored for 2009, but will not continue into 2010.
 
3. All bargaining unit members agree to continue the wage freeze through calendar year 2010. As a result, the contractual merit pay increase scheduled for June 27, 2010 is canceled.

From the Boston Globe:

The New York Times Co. announced that it has decided not to sell The Boston Globe, saying the paper’s financial performance had “significantly improved.”
The company had been exploring a sale of New England’s largest newspaper and had received two bids to buy the Globe and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette. The Times Co. said it is continuing to assess strategic alternatives for the Worcester paper, which it also owns.
In a memo sent to employees at 5 p.m. today, Times Co. chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and chief executive Janet Robinson said the Globe’s finances had improved after implementing aggressive cost cutting that included new union contracts that saved $20 million and consolidation of printing plants
“With these strategic steps, the Globe is on track to achieve substantial savings and is on a path to a more secure financial future,” Sulzberger and Robinson wrote.
The executives also acknowledged the turmoil the potential sale had caused employees.
“We know this has been a long and painful process, and we deeply appreciate the focus and dedication that you have all displayed over the past several months,” they wrote.
Robinson will be in Boston to meet with Globe employees tomorrow morning.
The swift decision to terminate the sale – less than a week after final bids were due – caps a tumultuous period for the 137-year-old newspaper. In April, the Times Co. threatened to shutter the Globe unless it got $20 million in concessions from its unions. The recession and migration of readers and advertisers to the Internet deeply hurt the Globe’s advertising revenues. The once robustly profitable paper lost $50 million last year and was at one point on track to lose $85 million this year. By June, the Times Co. had hired Goldman Sachs to manage a possible sale of the Globe and the T&G.
Ultimately two groups submitted bids to buy the Globe and the T&G. One team was led by former Globe executive Stephen Taylor and a member of the family that sold the Globe to the Times Co. in 1993 for $1.1 billion. The other was Platinum Equity, a Beverly Hills, Calif. buyout firm that owns the San Diego Union-Tribune.
It was unknown what the final bids were. In a preliminary round, Taylor’s group and Platinum Equity each offered about $35 million for the Globe and the T&G, plus the assumption of $59 million in pension liabilities.
Another group of Worcester businessmen submitted a bid to buy just the T&G, according to the paper. The group is led by Ralph D. Crowley Jr., chief executive of Polar Beverages Co., and Harry T. Whitin, the former T& G editor. The Times Co. bought the T&G for $296 million in 2000. Their bid was also unknown.

Sulzberger and Robinson’s memo appears below:

After careful consideration and analysis, we wish to tell you that we have terminated the process to explore the sale of The Boston Globe, Boston.com and related businesses, and they will remain within The New York Times Company.
We continue to assess strategic alternatives for the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, and are determined to reach a conclusion there quickly. We will provide a full update to our colleagues in Worcester as quickly as possible.

We know this has been a long and painful process, and we deeply appreciate the focus and dedication that you have all displayed over the past several months. Janet will be visiting Boston tomorrow for an employee town hall meeting at 11 a.m. She will talk with employees and take your questions.

The Globe has significantly improved its financial footing by following the strategic plan it set out at the beginning of this year. All along, we explicitly recognized that a careful restructuring of the Globe was one possible route and, thanks to your hard work, that is precisely what has been done.

The comprehensive financial strategy you executed incorporated a series of measures to increase revenues and lower costs, including:
· Consolidating printing facilities, expected to save $18 million a year,
· Increasing prices on newsstand and home-delivered copies of the Globe,
· Reducing compensation for the Globe’s managers and other nonunion employees,
· Restructuring the Globe’s labor contracts, which we are projecting will save $20 million in annual operating costs.

The great things you have accomplished both on the financial side and the editorial side of the Globe and Boston.com have solidified their positions as the leading media vehicles in the region. With these strategic steps, the Globe is on track to achieve substantial savings and is on a path to a more secure financial future.

For these initiatives to be successful it was necessary for the Globe’s readers, Boston.com’s users and the greater New England community to continue to embrace our products. They have responded with unwavering support of the Globe, its offerings and you.

We want to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to you for your many significant accomplishments under difficult circumstances. We applaud you for all that you have done and look forward to charting our future together.

Arthur & Janet

The PD wants to cut our pay and to make those cuts permanent, but at the mother ship, a “spirit of cooperation” between the Guild and management could result in the company restoring a 5 percent cut that was earlier agreed to by union members. The company is also going to offer voluntary buyouts in lieu of layoffs. The regionals and New York don’t always operate on the same track, but still, it’s striking how different relations are between the Guild and management at the corporate and local levels. Is it asking too much for the goodwill to trickle down? Read the full story here:

New York Times open to voluntary union buyouts

By ANDREW VANACORE
AP Business Writer
NEW YORK (AP) — The New York Times told its main union this week
that it is open to offering voluntary buyouts in a move that could
avert additional layoffs as the newspaper seeks to further cut
costs.
The newspaper also guaranteed to restore pay for union members
in January, after they had their salaries cut by 5 percent earlier
in the year.
The New York Newspaper Guild said in a memo to members Friday
that additional meetings will be scheduled to hammer out details of
any buyout offer.
Last year, the Times resorted to a limited but unspecified
number of newsroom layoffs to meet its goal of reducing head count
there by 100, largely through attrition and buyouts. The Times also
cut about 100 people in its business operations this year.
Nonunion workers also had their pay cut by 5 percent; Times
spokeswoman Diane McNulty declined to say whether they are also
guaranteed to have their pay restored.
The Times is owned by The New York Times Co., which also
publishes The Boston Globe, the International Herald Tribune and
more than a dozen smaller daily newspapers.
With advertising revenue down sharply during the recession, the
company has been slashing costs. After losing $74.5 million in the
first three months of the year, it notched a profit of $39.1
million in the second quarter. The turnaround came despite another
steep drop in ad revenue.
In its memo, the Guild said its meeting with the company’s
flagship newspaper “took place in a spirit of cooperation.”
Relations with union members at the Times have been more
congenial than at The Boston Globe, which the Times Co. threatened
to close earlier this year if unions didn’t accept concessions as
part of the Globe’s efforts to control costs. In June, members of
the Boston Newspaper Guild narrowly rejected a package of pay and
benefit cuts, prompting the company to unilaterally cut wages by 23
percent before a deal was reached.
The Guild said Times management signaled it was willing to offer
voluntary buyouts at the Times, rather than lay off employees
outright, because members had “stepped up” by voting to accept
the 5 percent pay cut.
AP-WS-09-25-09 1533EDT

By a margin of 81 percent to 19 percent, the Guild overwhelmingly rejected the company’s proposal. Turnout was excellent – approximately 80 percent of our membership submitted votes. Thanks for your interest!

This result obviously is a clear indication of the unit’s dissatisfaction with what the company wanted from us, and how they sought to get it. But to interpret this vote as a sign we are unwilling to pitch in to help in these challenging times would be a mistake. We have sacrificed, and will continue to do so, so long as it’s for the right reasons. Many of you who voted no to this proposal appended personal messages outlining your willingness to do your part, just as you have in the past. But many of you were skeptical, confused or angered by the company’s current demands, noting that they coincided with us losing an additional five more people from our ranks. No other department at the PD, so far as I am aware, suffered such a steep loss in the past six weeks. We were dealt a blow – but we were not knocked out.

It’s unclear as of this writing where the road leads next. I will alert you to any updates as they become available.

It’s been a tough week for all concerned. What say we gather at the Sweet Spot after work for a pint or two.

“Where have all the staffers gone,
Long time passing.
Where have all staffers, long time ago…
Gone and replaced by managers almost every one…”

With apologies to Mary Travers, who, had she not died yesterday, would have encouraged you to look at the Guild bulletin board and see the long list of newsroom employees over the last few years. It shows how we got down to a ratio of three staffers to each person in management.