The Guild received late Friday most of the information it sought from the company on health care, and discussions will resume this week with a new proposal from the union.

Our International Representative Jim Schaufenbil will join us.

“The Guild must always perform due diligence for our members and examine the numbers for ourselves to see if they are accurate,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said. “With this data in hand, we can now prepare our next proposal.”

The Guild expects to finalize details on the day and time for the next meeting on Monday. It will be this week. Even before getting the data, the union had asked for a meeting Tuesday.

The company could not meet that day. Company officials asked to meet Monday but that would have given the Guild no time to study the numbers received Friday night and to prepare a proposal.

We will keep our members posted as soon as we have details. We will share our proposal with you when we’ve finished our calculations and finalize it.

Members vote on any proposed change that is not comparable. What the company has proposed so far certainly qualifies.

In the past, the company has respected the membership’s decisions, including this year when our members rejected a proposed switch on dental care.

The company replied to the Guild’s health care proposal late Wednesday, essentially offering the same deal mechanical unions accepted.

For Guild members, that would mean an increase in costs from $37.76 a week to $47, an increase of $9.24 a week or 24 percent. This figures represents both the increase in the insurance premium and a portion of the reimbursement the company has previously always paid. It also would enable the company next year to double that amount.

The company offered no language on what would happen if its estimated reimbursement figure turned out to be too high. The Guild proposed that the overcharge be paid back to members by January 15 of the next year.

The company also offered no language on what would happen if its estimate of the reimbursement proved too low. Rather than have that money added to the employees’ bill for 2014, the Guild had proposed the company pay the difference.

The union also had proposed a signing bonus of $1,000 in recognition that the company would be altering the definition of total costs permanently, which would have an impact every year. (It also would be an acknowledgement that Guild members, unlike other unions that have agreed to this proposal, have not had raises in five years due to the company’s insistence on stripping workers of bargaining rights over layoffs and outsourcing.)

The company agreed to a Guild proposal that future health care discussions begin by October 1 so we avoid the kind of last-minute rush we face this year.

The union also reminded the company Thursday that it has failed to respond to an information request the Guild filed last week. Among the data we requested is a breakdown of how much of the deductible has been paid in recent years to non-Guild members and what Rowlands and Barranca does for the money the company wants us to pay.

That information is necessary for the Guild to continue to review the company’s proposal and formulate responses.

Members should not worry about having health care come January 1. The company is required to provide comparable insurance next year. The provider will remain unchanged. The parties’ discussions are centering around the costs and how they should be properly divided.

We will continue to post updates as we have them.

The Guild made a health care proposal Wednesday, and the company said it would respond Thursday.

The union began the meeting by producing the company’s own document from 2010 about the proposed 2011 health care coverage.

The document stated that the contribution percentage was based on the “total cost of the health care plan.” Nowhere does it include paying part of the company reimbursement or the plan administrator.

The company document also lists the components of the plan. One listed is the employee deductible of $750; another is the company contribution to the deductible.

“The company’s own document shows that total cost has not included the expenses they are now trying to add,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said, “and it shows the company share of the deductible is a part of the plan and cannot be dropped as the company threatened last week.”

Despite all that, the union made an offer even as O’Brien noted it was not required to do so. The Guild could just insist the members pay the same year over year increase as the company, which would amount to $4.53 a week.

Under the union proposal, the company would pay 77 percent of the first $750 of medical bills and Guild members would pay 23 percent of the company reimbursement. The net result would be about even or a slight increase of less than $1 or $2 a week.

The Guild proposed that share be phased in at 50 percent the first year and 10 percent a year for each year following.

If the parties’ estimate of the reimbursement proved too high, Guild members would be given a check for the overpayment by January 15. Under the Guild proposal, the company would cover any underestimate rather than billing members the next year.

Under the union proposal, Guild members would not pay the company’s chosen administrator and the annual discussion would have to begin by October 1. The union also would get monthly reports to be able to track the reimbursements.

In return for allowing the company to redefine what total cost includes, the Guild proposed a $1,000 signing bonus upon ratification of the plan.

The meeting was well-attended by members, and the union is grateful employees took the time to observe. The Guild invites people to share their stories with us in what the health care costs increasing would mean to them.

Publisher George Hearst threatened to impose a deductible of $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families Monday if the Guild did not agree to a 24 percent annual hike in health care costs.

Guild President Tim O’Brien warned Hearst that such an action would be illegal.

Guild officers are seeking a location for a membership meeting this week to gather your input. We expect to know when and where later Tuesday.

Hearst has been demanding that the union start paying 23 percent of the costs of the company’s reimbursements for its share of the deductible and of the fee charged by its plan administrator. To do so would mean employees’ health care costs would grow by more than a third.

Under the imposed conditions, the company cannot change the definition of what the parties have previously agreed constitutes “total cost.” The company is seeking to have union members cover part of the company’s reimbursement to exempt employees, members of other unions and people on COBRA as well as Guild members.

Under the imposed conditions, the company must offer a health care plan that is comparable. Hearst insisted that only refers to the benefits offered, and he can remove the company share of the deductible and yet the plan would remain comparable.

O’Brien said that is not true, and Hearst’s own words in the 2008 negotiations that got the parties into the high deductible plan show that changing the size of the deductible could render the plan not comparable.

Mechanical unions at the newspaper accepted the company’s argument and settled for paying half the increased cost. If the Guild followed the same formula, its members would pay $9.24 a week more or 24 percent. At the same time, the company’s year over year costs would increase 12.7 percent.

“This is not about the price of health care increasing,” O’Brien said. “We are ready and willing to pay the same percentage increase as the Times Union. This is about trying to shift more costs onto the backs of employees who have not had a raise in more than five years. The publisher had said a 15 percent increase in year over year costs was unacceptable to the company, but he has no qualms about demanding his employees pay 24 percent more — or face an unbearable financial burden if Guild members think that’s unacceptable.”

The Guild offered late Friday to either keep our health care just as it is next year or to alter the 90/10 split of medical costs so it starts and ends sooner.

The Guild said it would be willing to have employees start paying 10 percent of medical costs once they have received $1,500 of medical care for an individual or $3,000 for a family.

While that would mean some people start paying sooner, the cap would shift too so that the same numbers apply. The 10 percent share would end after another $1,500 in spending for an individual and $3,000 for a family.

The $750 deductible employees pay initially would not change.

The result would save those with the highest medical bills a little money. More people would save, though a few would spend a little bit more at the lower end.

Both approaches the Guild would accept did not call for the health care costs to explode by a third as the company proposes. Under the company proposal, employees would see their costs rise almost $14 a week.

While union members would see increases of more than 30 percent, the company’s cost would go up less than 13 percent.

Other unions bargaining with the company accepted its argument that “total costs” include paying a percentage of the employer’s hired plan administrator and of the company deductible. But they said it was too much to be asked to assume payment of all that in one year and offered to pay $2 extra a week toward the added cost rather than the $10 extra the company wants.

As Guild President Tim O’Brien noted, each union has its own bargaining history. Our attorney Barbara Camens has reviewed our contract and the imposed conditions and advised us that the company cannot under our circumstances impose changing what has constituted total costs for health care.

Under the contract language still in effect, the company has to offer either the current plan or a comparable one. That’s why In recent years members have voted on changes when the union determined the new plan was not comparable to the previous one.

After the meeting Friday, the Guild found its bulletin from when the high deductible plan was first negotiated in 2008. At the time, the union quoted Publisher George Hearst saying if the deductible increased significantly, the new plan would not be comparable and negotiations would have to occur.

That’s still true.

The parties meet again Monday.