Guild members will vote Thursday on a proposed buyout.

The vote will be held from noon to 2 p.m. and from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. upstairs in one of the executive conference rooms.

The terms of the deal are three weeks of pay for each year of service, with a minimum of 15 and a maximum of one year. The Guild tried to offer an added benefit for senior employees, but the company declined.

A person who takes the buyout would receive health care for the same time period.

The Times Union did agree to cover the $750 health-care deductible for workers who take the buyout and to keep their share of health-care costs at 21 percent. The Company also agreed to allow people who decline the health care coverage to receive 15 percent of the net premium or $3,492.15, which will be pro-rated based on the number of months of pay.

The deadline for people to apply for the buyout will be Friday, Nov. 11. Those who receive the buyout would be expected to leave by year’s end.

The company has said it is looking to cut six to nine positions total in editorial and among the exempt ranks. While people in other departments can apply for the buyout, the Times Union has said it is aimed at editorial workers.

To vote on the buyout package, you must be a member in good standing. The vote is open to members in all departments covered by the Guild.

You can read the terms of the buyout here.

The Guild and the Company are hoping to get a proposal on a buyout to members Tuesday for a vote.

The final offer has not yet been determined, but the basic outlines are in place. Those who take it will be paid three weeks for every year of service, with a minimum of 15. The Guild proposed the maximum be bumped up from 52 to 62 weeks, which would match contractual severance.

Health insurance would be provided for the same period.

The union dropped its proposal to eliminate the early retirement penalty. Instead, the union proposed that employees with 25 or more years of experience get an extra $15,000. The reason is that employees at that point in their careers would likely be retiring, not moving to a new career, and the extra cash would help make up for a loss in pension income (and a likely reduction in Social Security) from retiring before 65.

Twelve editorial employees have that much experience. There is precedent for this approach, as the company offered added cash to senior employees during a 2008 buyout.

The company has said it is looking to eliminate six to nine positions between exempt employees companywide and Guild-covered jobs in editorial. An offer was sent to exempt workers this week, and the company is asking for the Guild to agree to the same November 9 date for applications to be submitted.

The company has said workers in other departments can apply, but there is no guarantee anyone would get it. Those who do would leave the company before January 1.

The Executive Board will meet briefly Friday once the company finalizes its response to set hours for the vote. The plan is to offer voting both at lunch time and later in the evening for night-shift workers. The company has agreed to allow us to use a conference room for the voting.

The Guild again urges anyone who is thinking about the buyout to see Carole Hess for a calculation of what their pension would be.

We will provide details as soon as we can.

Discussions on the proposed buyout will resume at 3 p.m. Thursday.

The Guild committee has been reviewing data on the makeup of the editorial department. We examined the age and length of service of our members and calculated multiple examples of what retiring could mean to workers.

For many, retiring now could mean a loss of $3,000 to $4,000 a year in pension income as well as a reduced Social Security payout.

The department has 19 members who would be affected by the company’s proposed cap of one year’s severance. We have 12 members with 25 or more years of service.

To prevent layoffs among our newest members, we’re hoping the company will agree on some way to enhance the buyout for our longest-serving colleagues.

Any employee who is considering taking a buyout should ask Human Resources Director Carole Hess for a calculation of their pension benefits.

The members of the committee bargaining the buyout are President Tim O’Brien, Chief Steward Brian Nearing, Vice President Jeff Boyer and page designer Gillian Scott.

Once a buyout agreement is reached, a membership meeting and voting time will be scheduled.

The Guild and the Company continue to discuss the proposed buyout. The union is examining data on how it could affect employees’ retirement.

Late Friday, Publisher George Hearst responded to the Guild’s proposal with a few changes. He said he would accept including a calculation of differentials in what an employee normally receives as part of the buyout. He agreed to extend the offer beyond editorial, though he cautions people in other departments, especially advertising, were not likely to get it.

Hearst also said he’d agree to keep the employee share of health-care costs at 21 percent for those taking the buyout. But he also balked at paying those who decline insurance half the premium, a standard in previous buyouts.

A central issue in the Guild’s discussion is the large number of editorial employees who are at the age where they could consider taking early retirement. For some workers, taking a buyout would cut sharply into their pensions, making them reluctant to do so.

The union originally proposed eliminating both the one-year cap on the buyout and the early retirement penalty. Understanding that changing the early retirement penalty requires amending the pension plan, the union is now looking at other options for sweetening the deal in a way to make it more palatable for senior employees.

Anyone who might want to consider the buyout should ask Carole Hess in the Human Resources office to have their pension payout calculated. The formula is your five highest consecutive salaries times your credited years of service times .015. We caution you against making the calculation yourself for retirement planning purposes. You should make sure you get accurate, official numbers.

For a 55-year-old with 29 years’ experience, the full pension at 65 would be $21,750 a year. The two available options to retire at that age in 2012 would mean a choice between backdating the years of service to 2006, which would set the payment at $17,250 or cutting the pension in half for a payment of $10,875.

Obviously the first option is better, but it still means that retiring early would cut the annual pension by $4,500. Over 10 years, that’s a $45,000 loss in income, and that loss would continue each year of the employee’s life.

These numbers are our rough estimates and not official calculations, but we show them to you for illustrative purposes.

The company’s proposal on health care for next year would involve another switch of plans, this time to one run by Blue Shield of Northeastern New York.

The proposed plan for next year is a Blue Shield of Northeastern New York plan, which is a switch from the current Empire Blue Cross plan. It has the same $750 deductible for employees and the same 90/10 split of some medical expenses with one exception.

For office visits, once you pass the top of the total deductible ($2,000 for a single, $4,000 for a family) you’d pay a co-pay for office visits instead of the 90/10 split. (Preventative care visits, like well child and annual physicals, are completely covered now and under the new plan.) Medical treatments at that point would still require the 90/10 split.

That copay would be $20 for a doctor visit, $50 for an urgent care visit and $75 for an emergency room visit. Again, this is only if you’ve passed the top of the deductible and it is in lieu of, not on top of, the 90/10.

Whether the 10 percent or the flat payment is more expensive varies. Office visits average $60-70 for a general practitioner and $225 for a specialist. Emergency room visits can average $600 to $1,000. Urgent care visits average $250.

After the meeting, the Guild emailed the company to ask if those office payments would fall under the maximum under the 90/10 share or if people who reached the maximum would still be expected to pay for office, urgent care and emergency room visits. We are awaiting that answer.

Under the proposal, the weekly cost out of your check would rise $2.06 a week, or a little over $107 a year.

That would include our share of medical costs rising from 21 to 23 percent. When the company imposed conditions, it originally proposed to increase our share to 23 percent in 2011 and 25 percent in 2012. Last year, the company agreed to freeze our share at 21 percent for an added year.

To keep the same plan we have now would have increased the weekly copay $11.70 a week. The main reason cited is one employee amassed medical bills this year of more than $400,000, a catastrophic case Blue Cross was not willing to write off as an exception.

Last year, 40 people passed  the top of the deductible and had to pay 10 percent of some medical expenses. We’ve asked the company for details on how many hit the top maximum.

Another 43 people didn’t even reach the top of the $750 as of October 4.

We’ll continue to keep you posted on details as we get answers to our questions.