The Times Union owes 11 workers the company illegally laid off in 2009 about $600,000 in back wages, the National Labor Relations Board has determined.

That figure is actually low, the NLRB said, because it does not include pension accruals that the board says are owed to the 11. Interest on the debt continues to compound daily so that the actual number is already over $600,000.

One worker who has not yet found a job is owed more than $105,000. Another is owed more than $98,000. A third is owed more than $80,000.

“From the moment the Times Union began illegally laying off these workers, we put the company on notice that their actions were illegal and we would have no choice but to stand up for our members,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said. “The company made a choice to continue to break the law. It made a choice to waste tens of thousands of dollars on a losing legal appeal, only to see the decision upheld by the board in Washington, D.C. And now the time has come where the company is about to pay the price for actions it chose to take. ”

The NRLB is launching its enforcement process to require the Times Union to pay the debt that is owed. Part of the order also calls for those workers to be restored to the payroll and for the Times Union to do what we asked it to do in the first place: bargain in good faith over layoffs.

The court process can take six months to a year, but it is the final step in this long, drawn-out case.

Some of the laid-off workers have never found work. Others have worked more than one job to make ends meet. Some have suffered hits to what their pensions would have been.

The NLRB issued its findings on how much money is owed in late August. The union made a decision not to publicize those findings immediately as our intent has always been to try to negotiate a settlement not only of the legal case but of the contract.

The parties met Wednesday for off-the-record discussions, but they did not bear fruit. The Guild continues to insist that any settlement must be fair to the 11 illegally laid off workers and give our members the contract that is long overdue.

Members of the Guild approved the switch to the Blue Shield of Northeastern New York plan for next year.

Turnout was light as many viewed the new health care plan as similar, and in some ways better, than the existing plan.

The final tally was 40-4.

You can read our earlier report on the proposal here.

And if you’d like to look up information on whether your doctor participates, you can search here.

The Times Union has received enough buyout responses that involuntary layoffs will not be necessary, publisher George Hearst said today.

Sixteen people – including some from the exempt ranks – applied for buyouts, Hearst said.

“We have probably nine of those we can accept,” the publisher said. “Of the nine, there are five in the newsroom.”

In editorial, three Guild members and two exempt employees are likely to receive the buyout.

Hearst said that those numbers were sufficient so that no layoffs would be necessary.

“We are very glad to hear that only voluntary buyouts will occur,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said. “While we hate to see the size of the staff shrink any further, we also prefer our members to leave voluntarily with extra money in their pockets than to be laid off.”

Guild members will vote Tuesday on the proposed switch to a new health care plan. The vote will be from noon to 2 p.m. and 5-7 p.m. in the Executive Conference Room.

The company’s proposal involves moving to a Blue Shield of Northeastern New York plan. The Guild’s executive board recommends a yes vote.

In most ways, the two plans are similar. The deductible will stay at $750, and the company will cover the rest of the deductible up to $2,000 for an individual and $4,000 for a family. Once that cap is reached, people will pay up to 10 percent of their medical costs with a cap again of $2,000 for an individual and $4,000 for a family. Medical expenses after that are fully covered.

The main difference with the Blue Shield plan is that rather than pay 10 percent for office, urgent care and emergency room visits, employees would pay a flat $20 for office visits, $50 for urgent care visits and $75 for emergency room visits.

In many cases, especially doctor visits, that flat fee might be more expensive than the 10 percent would be. Those payments, however, would be counted toward the cap under the 90/10 split. That means the maximum liability for an employee would not increase.

In addition, medications would also count toward the cap under the 90/10 split, which is not the case under the current plan. For members with chronic illnesses that require regular medication, this could lower costs a bit.

The out-of-pocket cost for the employee share would rise a little over $2 a week – a total of $107 for the year. This figure includes both medical and dental coverage. The weekly contribution would rise from the current $35.70 a week to $37.76.

Employees must be members in good standing to be eligible to vote, which means either paid up in dues or signed up for a payment plan. You can pay back dues right before voting.

Guild members will get a chance to ask questions about the proposed health-care plan at a meeting with the company’s insurance broker at 2:30 p.m. Wednesday. A vote on the plan will be held from noon-2 p.m. and 5-7 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 15. Both will occur in the executive conference room on the second floor.

The company’s proposal involves a switch to a Blue Shield of Northeastern New York plan.

In most ways, the two plans are similar. The deductible will stay at $750, and the company will cover the rest of the deductible up to $2,000 for an individual and $4,000 for a family. Once that cap is reached, people will pay up to 10 percent of their medical costs with a cap again of $2,000 for an individual and $4,000 for a family. Medical expenses after that are fully covered.

The main difference with the Blue Shield plan is that rather than pay 10 percent for office, urgent care and emergency room visits, employees would pay a flat $20 for office visits, $50 for urgent care visits and $75 for emergency room visits.

In many cases, especially doctor visits, that flat fee might be more expensive than the 10 percent would be. Those payments, however, would be counted toward the cap under the 90/10 split. That means the maximum liability for an employee would not increase.

In addition, medications would also count toward the cap under the 90/10 split, which is not the case under the current plan. For members with chronic illnesses that require regular medication, this could lower costs a bit.

The out of pocket cost for the employee share would rise a little over $2 a week or $107 for the year.