The Guild is negotiating a buyout offer after the company informed two editorial employees Wednesday that their positions could be eliminated in 45 days.

Under the imposed conditions, the company must negotiate a buyout offer before any layoffs can occur. The two employees notified of a potential layoff are the least senior in their respective job titles.

The company indicated it would be willing to consider voluntary buyouts instead of letting these workers go if the cost and savings are similar.

The buyout would be along the lines of dismissal pay in the contract: two weeks of pay for every year of service.

The parties are discussing a possible minimum number of weeks. Health care coverage would be provided for the rest of the year, and there would be no challenge to unemployment.

Employees would have until 5 p.m. Friday, October 19, to notify the Human Resources Department if they are interested in the buyout. The company would have final say on accepting any buyouts.

Times Union employees kicked off a campaign today that includes a new video, a a new website and table tents with messages as part of what will be an ongoing effort to communicate that 1,800 days = too long to go without a raise.

Some of the newspaper’s most prominent faces appear in the video and columnist Fred Lebrun even offers his support. The table tents feature messages that include “Respect: a two-street,” “I need a raise” and “We deserve a contract.”

The website, 1800days.info, is the place to go to learn about the campaign.

Committee members Lauren Stanforth, John De Rosier and Ty Stewart all talked about how the new mobilizing committee is a grass-roots effort to show the company that a raise and a contract is a sign of respect for all employees and not just something the union’s leaders want. They all encouraged the members at the kickoff event Tuesday to share their input. If people have an idea for a table tent message, they said, pass it on and it will be printed.

View the video here, let us know what you think and we hope you’ll join your colleagues in the next one.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPsglGwZSYE]

Wednesday, August 1, marks 5 years, more than 1,800 days since our last raise.

With rising costs, that means there are fewer employees doing more work for less money.

Join us between 2:45–3:15 pm outside Wednesday for free ice cream and to hear about how we can work together for everyone’s benefit.

Turnout was sparse for Thursday’s vote on dental care, but the members who did cast their ballots decided to stick with Empire Blue Cross.

The vote was 17-10 against switching to dental insurance provided by Guardian.

For the most part, members were ambivalent about the switch. Different dentists accepted different insurance, making it hard to gauge the overall impact on the membership as a whole.

Even the Guild leadership had conflicting feelings. President Tim O’Brien learned his dentist might drop Blue Cross and might pick up Guardian, but nothing was certain.

Guild leaders said turnout would have been stronger, and more opposed, if the proposed cap of $2,500 per person had been in the mix. Guardian had agreed to withdraw the cap. But with an estimated savings of only $11 a year, the proposal did little to drive members to vote or to want to switch.

“We remain open to discussing ways to save whenever they arise,” O’Brien said. “Summer is a tough time to rivet people’s attention on this subject, especially with so little savings at stake.”

When the company announced our legal settlement last month, its Executive Committee wrote “we believe that we acted in a lawful manner.” But a posting that went up Monday admits the truth: The company finally acknowledges it broke the law.

As part of the settlement, the company posted a notice on its Intranet and on bulletin boards in features, advertising, advertising art and in the cafeteria. (You can read the full text there and in a bulletin we will share with our members Tuesday. Throughout this process, we have tried to avoid putting the names of the 11 workers on our blog as much as we can, and we’d like to avoid doing so now too to protect their privacy.)

Here is what the final paragraph says: “WE WILL make [the 11 workers] whole consistent with a settlement reached by all parties for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of our unlawful action against them.” (The emphasis is ours.)

The posting must remain up for 60 days. You can check it out for yourselves.

As for layoffs, we believe they are not necessary, as the staff has continued to be cut. The company must give notice and bargain buyouts first, and we believe there would be sufficient interest to make involuntary layoffs unnecessary.

And finally, the company has stated the returning workers put the company “over budgeted staffing levels.” One is returning to a features slot, where a colleague just retired and another is on maternity leave. There is one other reporter among four exempt editors. Clearly this reporter is very much needed and does not displace anyone.

The company has known since 2010 a hearing officer ordered the reinstatement of 11 employees. It has known since 2011 that its appeal was denied unanimously by the NLRB. The company has had sufficient time to budget and plan for this day.