The Guild came to the bargaining table with a revised proposal Wednesday, but the Company wanted no further discussion and was unwilling to even listen to further changes. Instead, its bargainers demanded that its “best and last offer” be taken to a vote of the membership.

That would allow the Company to outsource any and all jobs and to lay off anyone regardless of seniority and without providing any guidelines on what workers could do to keep their jobs. It would raise employees’ share of health insurance costs 5 percent on January 1, eating up more than $300 of the $500 cash bonus the Company proposes. (There would be no raises over the three-year life of the agreement.)

Guild bargainers decided that, given the Company’s refusal to move any further, the time has come for the membership to speak out through its vote. The Executive Board will meet at 5:30 p.m. Thursday (which is tomorrow as this is being written but today as many of you are reading this) to discuss setting a time and location for the vote.

“We believe the bargaining committee has done all it can do up to this point,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said. “Now it is up to the membership. We are disappointed at the Company’s refusal to do what we remain willing to do: explore the proposals and make amendments to move us closer together.”

When one of the Company’s two out-of-town lawyers said last time that past performance reviews and disciplinary letters could be used in deciding who gets laid off, the Guild asked to review those files. In beginning that review, the Guild swiftly learned many performance reviews had yet to be filed, two out of the nine files we examined had the wrong person’s reviews in them and others contained extremely old disciplinary letters.

“We wanted to have further discussion on this discovery, which we made earlier in the day, but the Company did not want to discuss how it might use those inaccurate files to lay someone off,” O’Brien said.

In the days ahead, the Guild will provide its members with a complete list of everything in the Company’s demands and an explanation of what it all means. The parties had reached some tentative agreements on relatively minor issues that will be part of the package.

The Executive Board will also decide what recommendation to make to the membership.

As soon as a membership meeting date is set, we will inform you.

Heard of Helium?

It’s not just that gas that fills balloons and makes you talk funny. It’s a chance to replace local news reporters with, well, anyone in the community who wants to write for a few bucks. And a major partner is the Hearst Corp.

Here’s the pitch from Helium’s own Web page:

“Who knows your community better than you? Helium has partnered with newspapers around the country – from Bridgeport, Connecticut, to Santa Rosa, California – to tap in to writers with the inside edge. You’re the ones who know the local dining hot spots, town politics, the real estate market, hidden shopping jewels, the best dog parks and more!”

 

“If you want to write for your local paper, here’s where to start. Find your newspaper on the list below. The link will take you to a page with links to the newspaper’s current titles as well as any Marketplace titles currently available. Check back often – we’re adding new newspaper partners every week!”

And if you look at the list of nine newspapers, six of them are owned by the Hearst Corp. All six are in Connecticut and fall under the jurisdiction of, you guessed it, Mark Aldam.

So if  you’re a local reporter and think your work can’t be outsourced, think again. There is someone very excited  to write about the best local dog park just waiting to cover your beat. Sure, most of the stories they generate are garbage, but we’re not sure a company that would change the name of its “Capital Region Voices” to “City Brights” because that’s what it’s called in San Francisco cares any more about quality or being truly local. This Web site shows the Hearst Corporation’s claims to care about quality are a bunch of hot air.

Stacy Wood has agreed to continue serving on the bargaining team after taking a buyout from her position.

The Guild has reached out to members in advertising, and the answer is that employees retain confidence in Stacy’s continued ability to represent them.

“People in advertising have told me the increased workload and state of the industry make it very difficult for them to find time to serve on the bargaining team at this time,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said. “They also are reluctant to join the team so deep into negotiations. I’ve been advised that people are very confident that Stacy will continue to be an effective bargainer and that she brings to the table a detailed understanding of how the advertising department works and the pressures members there face.”

It is not unprecedented in the Guild for a former employee to continue serving.

“We greatly appreciate Stacy’s continued willingness to spend time negotiating,” O’Brien said. “She’s a pro. She’s highly responsible, great to work with, and she truly cares about the people who work at the Times Union. We’re grateful she is willing to continue to work with us.”

We’ve seen company bosses say all kinds of things in the heat of negotiations, but Publisher George Hearst hit a new low today.

In his memo to staff, he said: “If we cannot reach a negotiated agreement in short order, the further passage of time without relief on these important issues may require us to modify our proposal to something worse.  We do not wish to take that step, but if it is necessary, we will.”

Wow. The very definition of a bully.

It’s a shame to see someone who once had such a sterling reputation in the community continue to sully it. His approval ratings are dropping like Gov. Paterson’s, for the same reasons.

In its ongoing effort to push for an impasse, the Times Union sent a letter Wednesday saying it is presenting its “last, best offer” and wants the matter taken to a vote of the membership. Here’s the Guild’sresponse sent today.

The offer, however, is largely unchanged. It still calls for an unfettered right to outsource any and all of our work; to lay off people outside seniority with no guidelines; it would force members to see a 5 percent increase in their share of health insurance come January 1. (That would be in addition to any increase in the dollar amount from one year to the next.)

The Company also altered its proposal to say that if the Times Union declares an impasse, it would continue to bargain with the Guild over implementation of layoffs outside seniority and outsourcing. Ironically, that would give the Guild greater say if the Company declared impasse than if its proposal was approved by the membership.

“The Newspaper Guild is consulting with our legal counsel, Barbara Camens, and reviewing the Company’s letter and the Times Union’s contract proposals,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said. “We still have outstanding information requests the Company has not answered. The Company’s statement that we are at or near impasse is inaccurate.”

The parties have a negotiation session scheduled from 5:30-8:30 p.m. Wednesday in the Executive Conference Room upstairs. The Company’s decision to cancel the contract has forced  the Guild to bargain less often and in the evenings in order to keep costs down.

“We continue to look at our own proposals as well as the Company’s, and it is possible either or both sides will have modifications to their proposals to present Wednesday,” O’Brien said. “Should we decide that we’ve reached a point to send a proposal to the membership for a vote, we will alert you swiftly.”

Members are welcome to attend bargaining on their own time.