Under the terms imposed by the Company, your days off can be changed without your consent once a year. But what does “without your consent” mean?

This issue arose after a group of employees in the circulation department had their days off switched. Guild President Tim O’Brien and Chief Steward Brian Nearing met with company leaders Monday to discuss the changes.

Company leaders praised the employees’ performance, saying they had increased revenue in the first week handling outbound calls. The TU also is looking to bring work now done by an outside contractor, confirming new starts, in house.

That was welcome news, but we did have one question: “Did you ask the employees if they consented to the changes in their days off?”

The initial answer was no, but if no one said they disagreed with the switch, the company assumed the employees consented. That means if the TU wants to change the workers’ schedules again in a few months, it would argue that employees could not invoke their right to limit changes without consent to once a year.

The Guild said implied consent should not be enough. Employees should be specifically asked if they agree to the change. Otherwise, both parties could find themselves in a later dispute over whether silence meant consent.

To its credit, the Company then said it would provide a form to employees asking if they consent to the change. If an employee says yes, their days off could be changed again in less than a year without their agreement. If an employee says no, the company cannot change days off again within a year unless the employee agrees.

Employees should not worry they will be penalized for saying they do not consent to the change. You have a legally protected right to invoke a benefit.

While this issue first came up in circulation, it is relevant to every Guild-covered worker, and we thought you should know about it.

One of the best parts of attending the Guild and CWA annual meetings is to talk to other union leaders about what is happening in their locals.

And there is no one I look forward to chatting with more than Michael Cabanatuan, leader of the Northern California Media Workers Guild. It’s not just that Michael is a very nice guy. He also leads the Guild local at the Hearst-owned San Francisco Chronicle, and what happens there often heads our way next. (Michael also lives in Albany, California, an irony we both enjoy.)

Here’s his assessment of the Hearst Corp. and how it is treating workers there. It’s not pretty, but Chronicle workers are lucky to have a strong president and leadership. We support Michael and his colleagues as they have supported us.

U.S. District Court Judge Gary L. Sharpe ruled in our favor that the Company must allow the case over the cutoff of dues collection to go to binding arbitration.

You can read the text of the judge’s decision here.

The Newspaper Guild has won a major victory over the Times Union over the cutting off of our dues collection last year.

The newspaper tried to prevent the union from being able to take the cessation of dues to arbitration, but a U.S. District Court justice ruled Friday that the union has a right to be heard on the case.

Last year, in an effort to force members to accept a contract that would enable the  newspaper to lay off anyone without negotiation and to lay people off and outsource their work, the Times Union canceled its contract with the union and stopped collecting dues.

The Guild argues that the newspaper does not have the right to cease dues collection. The Times Union refused to let the case go to arbitration, which resulted in the court battle the union has now won.

“We are grateful to the Guild’s International and its lawyers for their hard work on this case,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said. “The Times Union needs to stop its harmful treatment of its employees. We know times are tough and have always been willing to make concessions, but employees still deserve to be treated with kindness, dignity and respect, and part of that is to respect the workers’ right to bargain over critical matters like layoffs and outsourcing. Cutting off our dues to compel members to support an unfair contract was improper and, we’re proud to say, it didn’t work.”

An effort is being made to revitalize a local organization for women active in the labor movement.

The effort is to revive a local chapter of the Coalition of Labor Union Women. A meeting for anyone interested in scheduled for 5:30 p.m. June 21 at PEF headquarters on Route 7 in Latham.