With Melissa Nelson back at the bargaining table today, the Company got a good history lesson.

She reminded the Company where the letter came from that outlines the policy on allowing employees to recapture unused sick leave when seriously ill. (The Company has said it may seek to end the practice.)

Back in the late 1980s, Melissa was among a group of pregnant employees. Some were allowed to use back sick time, and one woman was declined. The Guild filed a grievance, which resulted in the letter still in the contract today spelling out the practice to allow unused back sick time to be used when people are on a long-term illness.

Ironically, the Company’s threat to end the practice comes when several Guild members are pregnant (and one just had twins), as the Company has noted on its internal Web site. Congratulations on the baby, but you can’t use back sick time: That’s a helluva of a family-unfriendly message to send.

Melissa also reminded the Company why we have language that requires layoffs to be in reverse order of seniority — another bit of language the Times Union bosses want to eliminate. Under former Publisher Tim White, she noted, the Company first put out a seniority list and then a layoff list that skipped over some newly hired employees.

Current Local President Tim O’Brien recalled that the Company refused to tell people where they stood on its layoff list and insisted the union do it. O’Brien recalled how horrified one fairly recent hire was to be told he was skipped. “How do I go back and face my friends?” he asked.

As a result of that horrible experience, both sides decided that it was in everyone’s best interest to make sure that never happened again. It’s a lesson that should not be lost in time.

The parties also began a discussion on exempt titles that will resume when negotiations start at 11 a.m. Wednesday in the Executive Conference Room. Members may attend on their own time.

The newspaper launched a very nice revamp of its internal newsletter, renamed the Inside Scoop. We especially loved the photo of our four expectant mothers in editorial.
There was an item we weren’t so crazy about:

“A compensation review committee will evaluate all of our options to lower payroll costs next year without significantly impacting service and quality. The group will consider all aspects of base compensation, wage escalators, merit increases and bonus plan designs. Plan to be implemented in fall 2008.”

The Company was swiftly informed that this message is false. Oh, a committee may be meeting all right. It might even be chatting about these issues. But these are all mandatory subjects of bargaining. The Company cannot implement anything unless it is negotiated with the Guild and — here’s the truly great part — ratified by the membership.

That’s right. You get to decide what changes can be made to base pay, wage escalators, merit raises and bonuses. It’s your right. And no (insert favorite cuss word here) “compensation review committee” is going to take that right away from you.

Melissa was so appalled to hear that the Company was again proposing to eliminate protections against outsourcing our work, she is making a beeline back to Albany to remind George Hearst what happened the last time that was tried. She might even wear one of the old “I Love 1(D)” stickers.

Our local’s immediate past president, Melissa is today the Executive Secretary of the Guild International’s Contracts Committee. With our usual International Representative Jim Schaufenbil away, Melissa will be joining our bargaining committee for some September sessions. You can see Melissa and the commitee in action from 2-5 p.m. Wednesday, Sept. 3, and 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Thursday, Sept. 4. Members are welcome to attend the sessions during their breaks.

As he likes to do every so often during bargaining, Associate Publisher George Hearst asked union leaders today when the parties could pick up the pace and bring negotiations to a speedier end.

Guild bargainers replied that the Company should look no further than its own proposal to see why negotiations might take a while.

“So far, your list includes a series of givebacks, many of them sweeping and many of them an extremely difficult sell to our members,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said on behalf of the bargaining team. “We’ll need you to be much more specific about what it is you’re really seeking.”

O’Brien noted the Company had asked the union to separate the proposed newsroom reorganization from the rest of contract talks. The union did so and worked out a swift agreement with the Company.

“We think if the Company wants to move more aggressively toward a contract, it needs to withdraw some of its most onerous proposals such as the elimination of 1(D), the proposal on ending seniority protection during layoffs, the elimination of the no-pay-cuts clause and changing days off without consent,” he added.

Section 1(D), which the Company wants to eliminate, says the Company cannot displace or replace staff positions and give that work to an independent contractor or nonunion part-timer. It protects us from our work being outsourced.

In 1994, the union made an exception to the language affecting drivers. At the time, there were 49. Today, there are five. (And, O’Brien noted, the Company assured the Guild at the time of the agreement that it had no intention to gut the drivers’ workforce.)

That’s when Guild bargainer Stacy Wood of advertising asked Hearst: “Have you seen ‘Frankenstein?’ ” If the union presented those proposals to the workforce, she said, members would be inclined to grab pitchforks and torches and chase the bargaining committee members into the hills.

Employees came to the bargaining table Tuesday to discuss the stunning amount of work they are being asked to do, and they objected to the Company’s proposal to remove language that bars the Times Union from imposing “unreasonable duties” constituting a speed-up.

District Manager Mark Corelli discussed his role as the only person in a Saratoga Springs depot at a time when the Company agreed to start delivering the Saratogian. Besides the Times Union, DM’s also oversee delivery of the New York Post, Daily News, Wall Street Journal and New York Times.

“I know it brings in revenue to the Times Union, but now I am not only responsible to my own company but I have to answer to people at other companies,” he said. The Saratogian supplied incomplete information, and it had some routes on streets where Times Union carriers did not go.

During the weeks surrounding the start of the Saratogian’s delivery, he said, he worked 90 hours and was paid overtime. Though problems remain coordinating the delivery of multiple publications, he has now been told he should stop working overtime.

Corelli said he recently took the first full week off he’s had in seven years and the first Sunday he’s had off in a year.

Renee Bernard of classified advertising was recently moved upstairs from the front desk. She said she was brought in to replace a colleague who left but has been told she also will be trained to take recruitment ads. She’s being taught copy input. When two other employees left, one colleague had to do their work in addition  to her own. When she was sick, there was no backup.

Patti Reynolds, an automotive sales rep., recited a stunning list of products she’s expected to sell. At the same time, commissions have been sharply reduced. “What kind of a job can we do under these circumstances?” she said. “Speedup has no place in the Times Union.”

Guild President Tim O’Brien asked the Company why it was proposing to eliminate this sentence: “There shall be no imposition of unreasonable duties constituting in fact a speedup.”

Associate Publisher George Hearst acknowledged the union had never taken a grievance to arbitration on the issue, but said the language had led the union to sometimes ask about employees’ workload. “It becomes an unproductive discussion,” he said.

Asked to cite a specific time when such an “unproductive discussion” occurred, Hearst could not do so.

There was some good news at the bargaining table. The parties reached a tentative agreement on interns that means the union will be provided with information, upon its request, including the duration of any internship and any compensation or credit being provided. Internships are to be of a limited duration and cannot displace or replace existing staff positions.