In our summary of the Company’s proposal, we erred in our description of the language on OT.

Overtime would be paid after 40 hours a week, rather than the current 37.5, but a supervisor could not order you to work 10 hours one day and then send you home early the next. The way the language is written, employees and supervisors would have to mutually agree for that to occur.

We apologize  for the error and will correct it in our summary.

There is quite a discussion going on at the excellent local blog, All Over Albany. You can read it here.

We must admit we were mildly amused by the format of Publisher George Hearst’s e-mail this week. In it, Hearst talked to himself, asking questions and then providing his own answers. (Sample exchange: How are you? Excellent. Hey, thanks for asking.)

In the same spirit, we offer a Q&A for the publisher. We hope he answers these questions next week.

1. Has any other union in the plant given up all seniority protections or agreed to allow any and all of its jobs to be outsourced? No, none.
2. Why hasn’t George Hearst mentioned that in any of his e-mails? Only he can answer that question for you.
3. I understand other newspapers where outsourcing language has been approved have included reasonable limits, specified what jobs would not be outsourced or offered enhanced severance for anyone laid off as a result. Is that true? Why, yes it is. But the Company has made no such proposals here.
4. Why hasn’t that been mentioned in any of the Company’s e-mails? Only George Hearst can answer that question for you.
5. I understand the Guild proposed that the Company could skip 10 percent of the people laid off outside of seniority. If the Company thought that percentage was too low, why didn’t it counter with a higher one rather than seek to lay off anyone no matter how long and loyally they have served? Only George Hearst can answer that question.
6. An older employee who is laid off will likely have a more difficult time finding a job, will likely have a greater need for health insurance and, as I understand it, will risk having their pension cut in half. Is that true? Yes.
7. Why would the Company want to hurt its loyal employees that way? Only George Hearst can answer that question for you.
8. Why has the Company refused to share any information on what jobs would be outsourced? If it did, you’d vote no.
9. Does the Company honestly think we’ll believe it canceled the contract, cut off dues and threatened impasse to obtain outsourcing language it has “no plans” to use? Only George Hearst can answer that question.
10. Is it true that the Company’s creation of a magazine division created new Guild jobs, as Hearst said in his recent e-mail? No, new Guild jobs were created. One employee was moved into the division part-time after the Guild filed a grievance saying both other employees could not reasonably be exempt when they weren’t supervising any union members. The magazines are entirely written by freelancers.
11. Why would he say something so obviously untrue? Only George Hearst can answer that question for you.
12. If we vote this proposal down, shouldn’t the Company respect its employees’ decision and come back to the table to offer reasonable language on outsourcing and seniority? It certainly should.
13. Would it be in the Company’s interest to declare an impasse and attempt to force this language on us if we vote it down? Absolutely not. It would be in everyone’s best interest to come to a reasonable settlement.
14. Does the Guild have the support of Capital Region labor unions? Yes, as George Hearst well knows because they came in for a meeting with him and have called him by the score. He also has heard from many public officials who have urged him to be reasonable, and he has ignored all of them.
15. Why doesn’t the publisher acknowledge the outpouring of public support the Guild has received? Only George Hearst can answer that question for you.
16. The publisher claimed in his e-mail he had no idea what a member in good standing of a labor union is. Does he really not know? Of course he knows. He’s just not being honest with you.

Guild members took their lunch hour Thursday to hear from their union leaders about the Company’s offer, and they were stunned to learn all the information publisher George Hearst has been withholding from them.

Members learned that other newspapers where outsourcing language was approved set reasonable limits, specified what jobs would not be outsourced and/or provided enhanced severance for anyone laid off as a result of outsourcing. While the union offered to allow up to 6 percent of its positions to be outsourced (about 13 jobs a year under the current membership totals), the Company did not offer any of the language other newspapers have adopted. Nor has the Company asked any other union in the plant to allow the outsourcing of any and all jobs, a fact Hearst refuses to address in any of his e-mails.

(Some members also complained as they entered the session that Hearst sought to interfere in the union meeting by sending a snotty e-mail moments before it began. They applauded bargaining committee members Tim O’Brien, Mary Fultz, John Demania and Stacy Wood for their bravery and dignity in the face of the Company’s attempts to portray them as anything less than dedicated to strongly representing the union’s members.)

“George Hearst won’t tell you which jobs he would outsource for one simple reason,” O’Brien said. “He knows that if he did, those people would come to the meeting, beg you not to vote to lay them off and outsource their jobs, and there is no way any of you would vote yes. He is hoping that by not connecting names and faces to his proposal, he can get you to approve it.”

He said it was absurd for Hearst to claim the Company had no plans to use the outsourcing language if it got it. “The Company did not cancel our contract, cut off our dues collection and threaten us with impasse so it could get language it has no plans to use,” O’Brien said.

O’Brien  informed members that the union had offered to let 10 percent of those laid off be out of seniority. (If the TU laid off 60 people, it could skip six.) “If George Hearst thought that percentage was too low, he could have countered with a higher number,” O’Brien said.

O’Brien recounted how he recently talked to a driver who was accepting a buyout. The Company was outsourcing his position. It could not lay him off under the current language, but he did not want the clerical position he was offered. Because the employee was not yet 55, O’Brien said, his being forced out would cause his pension to be cut in half.

“Employees who get laid off a little bit shy of 55, after 25 or 30 years of loyalty to the Company, will see their pensions severely reduced,” O’Brien said. “That’s why we fight so hard to preserve some regard for seniority. You won’t read that in any of George Hearst’s e-mails.”

The Guild provided members with a summary of the Company’s proposal, which members agreed was much more thorough than what the Company had provided. The union also gave its members the exact language they are being asked to approve, something else the Times Union did not see fit to share.

Members also heard from Guild leaders and International Representative Tim Schick about what would happen if the members voted the proposal down. Union leaders explained that the Company’s language (as its own lawyer admitted at the last bargaining session) would actually give union leaders more say on outsourcing and layoffs under an impasse than if the Company’s language were approved. For legal reasons, the Company added language that said it would continue to negotiate with the union over the implementation of its layoff and outsourcing language in the event of an impasse.

“There is literally no incentive for the members to approve this offer,” O’Brien said. “If people are to be laid off, the Company’s own lawyer admitted the Guild would have more input under an impasse than if the Company proposal was approved.”

Union leaders  also explained that under an impasse, the Company can only impose language from its last offer. It could not, say, suddenly decide to cut wages or eliminate severance when those proposals were not in their offer.

The Guild distributed a question-and-answer packet that discussed what would happen if the members rejected the Company offer. You can view that here.

Members said afterward they were impressed by the thoroughness of the union’s presentation. After hearing directly about some of the employees who reasonably fear they would be laid off and their work outsourced, many at the meeting said they had changed their minds and would vote to reject the Company’s proposal. Others said they had already decided against approving the proposal and were turned off by the tone and lack of full disclosure in Hearst’s e-mails.

The Guild will hold an informational session at noon Thursday at the Colonie Public Library.

There, we will provide you with a copy of the exact language you’re being asked to consider; a thorough explanation of the proposal; a summary of what happens if the Company’s offer is rejected; and details on what George Hearst is not telling you and why.

In the end, we think you’ll agree with the Bargaining Committee and your elected Executive Board that a ‘no’ vote is the only one that makes sense for you, your family and your future.

You must be current on your dues to attend the meeting and to vote on June 14 (as well as to attend the Guild picnic on June 7.) Most people are, but there are still some stragglers out there. You may pay at the door but you cannot attend otherwise.