Accepting a promotion can put an employee at greater risk of layoffs.

That was the stunning news embedded in the decision to let go three employees last week in the advertising art/marketing subdepartment. The company said it chose to let go people in the title of marketing media specialist, a Class B title formerly called specialty publications editor. The layoffs were done in reverse order of seniority by job title, the company said.

One of the laid-off employees worked for the company for 12 years but was promoted 2 1/2 years ago from an advertising artist’s job. Accepting that promotion, it turned out, made him more vulnerable to a layoff because there were only four people in the marketing title and three were let go.

When the company posted conditions in 2009, it eliminated language that would have allowed employees targeted for layoff to bump back into a previously held position. Without that language, the 12-year worker could not seek to return to his prior position.

Guild leaders said they were upset at the timing of the company’s decision, laying off people in the week between Christmas and New Year’s.

While the Times Union did offer buyouts in November, it had not specified which titles in ad art/marketing were being targeted. Had the company done so, as it did with district managers, it might have prompted some workers to apply for the buyout.

The Guild calculated, however, that all three workers are receiving a better payout because they waited for the layoff. That’s because they worked more than a month longer, and because a layoff requires the company to provide either nine weeks’ notice or nine weeks’ pay in lieu of notice. For two of the three workers, that 9 weeks’ pay added up to more than the additional week pay for year of service that was included in the buyout.

For the third worker, the buyout would have given 36 weeks’ pay. A layoff will provide 24 weeks’ pay plus the nine weeks of notice pay. While that is three weeks less than the buyout offer, the employee kept his job for more than a month by not accepting the buyout.

“It pains us greatly to see our colleagues laid off, and we think the company will find that this cut is too deep and there are not enough people to do the work,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said. “But even in the worst of times, there is a benefit to having a union. In a non-union workplace, there would be no buyout offers, no guarantee of severance and no 9 weeks’ pay in lieu of notice.”

The Times Union managers said it was likely the newspaper would create fewer specialty publications now. If advertising artists are made to do that work more than 15 hours in a week or more than two full days, they will be entitled to a pay class differential. If the company tries to outsource the work, it would have to be negotiated.

The Times Union is offering to provide health insurance to the laid-off workers for the same number of weeks they would be paid. Guild leaders also said they appreciated the fact the workers were allowed to finish their day and not made to leave the premises immediately, as happened in the 2009 layoffs.

The Guild also asked what the company planned to do with positions on the Web desk. No employees there had applied for buyouts either, though the company again had not been specific about any targeted job titles.

Publisher George Hearst said no final decision has been made on the Web team because a companywide reconfiguration is being developed. O’Brien pointed out that if the Times Union planned to outsource that work to another Hearst operation, that would have to be negotiated.

The Times Union laid off three employees in advertising art/marketing today.

The Guild immediately sought a meeting with the company to discuss the actions, which were taken abruptly and while most of the union leadership, including President Tim O’Brien, was on vacation.

“We are deeply disappointed by today’s actions especially in light of our earlier discussions about how much work is done in advertising art/marketing,” O’Brien said. “We had hoped we would have been given an opportunity to renew those discussions before the company acted.”

The union is examining whether the company’s action met its legal obligations in its handling of the layoffs. That will be part of the discussion when the union and company meet at 10 a.m. Tuesday. International Representative Jim Schaufenbil will join the Guild for that discussion.

The Guild asked the company this week to delay new commission plans on ad sales staff until the Commission Committee can review them and make recommendations as is required.

In 1993, the union and company reached an agreement to create the Commission Committee. Commissions are mandatory subjects of contract bargaining, but both parties recognized it would be burdensome to negotiate every commission plan during contract talks.

The Commission Committee was then created to give members input into the plans. Over the years, the company would come forward with a plan, members would review it and make recommendations, and some of those changes would be accepted and others would not.

The Guild is in the midst of revamping the committee. Longtime chairperson Christine Wright has decided to take a break from the role in which she served so well for many years. Lindsay LaFountain has stepped up to take the role as the committee’s leader. Rick Barber has also volunteered to serve on the committee, and we are seeking others to help as well.

If you have an interest in serving on the committee, or would simply like more information, contact Lindsay, call the Guild office at 482-9218 or e-mail the union at office@albanyguild.org.

The committee intends to do what our agreement requires. (You can find the agreement, which remains in effect, on Page 75 of the last contract.) It states that the committee will review any changes to commission plans and make recommendations. Commission plans should not be imposed before the committee has a chance to review them, consult with colleagues and make those recommendations.

The Newspaper Guild will resume its off-the-record talks with the Times Union on Tuesday, January 11.

The union pressed the company to schedule a negotiating date to respond to the off-the-record proposal the union made on November 23. When the company said it was unable to make the December date the union requested, the Guild suggested the January 11 date and the company agreed.

“We are committed to keep trying to resolve all the outstanding issues,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said. “We wish we could discuss our proposals and the company’s responses publicly, but we are advised by counsel that it is best not to do so given our pending legal cases.”

The union will be represented by O’Brien, First Vice President Lindsay LaFountain and Chief Steward Brian Nearing. International Representative Jim Schaufenbil will again join us.

Guild members approved a switch to a Blue Cross health insurance plan with a low premium increase but a potential high cost to the sickest employees.

The new insurance was approved by a vote of 39-7.

Under the new plan, which takes effect January 1, employees will see their weekly payroll deduction increase from $33.81 a week to $35.70, up $1.89. Employees also will see their share of premium costs stay at 21 percent for 2011 rather than rising to 23 percent as the company had originally imposed.

The deductible will also stay at $750 rather than increasing to $1,000 as the company had originally sought.

If we had stayed with MVP, the deductible would have risen to $1,000 and the weekly contribution to $51.37.

Under the new plan, however, members who use health care the most could pay a good deal more.

All employees will pay up to $750 for the deductible. Once employees reach that level, the company will reimburse them for medical expenses up until $2,000 for singles and $4,000 for family coverage.

When those plateaus are reached, employees will then be responsible for paying 10 percent of any medical costs. (Physicals and well child care do not require employees to pay a share.)

The maximum any employee will pay will be $2,000 for an individual plan or $4,000 for a family plan. (The total maximum exposure, counting the deductible, will be $2,750 for an individual or $4,750.)

“Our members recognized that this plan shifts costs, and we will monitor the impact it has on our co-workers over the next year,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said. “But we also realized that we would burden all employees with a large increase if we stayed with MVP, and we would have forced the company into paying hundreds of thousands of dollars more for health care, which we would have expected the TU to attempt to recoup somewhere else. In the end, members weighed the issues and made the decision.”

While turnout was low, some employees told Guild leaders they chose not to vote because they are covered under a spouse’s plan and did not feel they should decide on other people’s coverage.

The Guild and company had examined a CWA fund called the United Furniture Workers Fund as an alternate option, but too many potential problems arose to make that a viable option to implement quickly.