Ever play that gag when you were a kid? You’d tell some other child about your amazing, superfast running speed. You’d say “I am going to run around the world.” You’d assume a running position, then you’d turn and smile: “Want to see me do it again?”

That’s what it has been like to bargain with the Company this time around.

In his latest memo, Publisher George Hearst says the Company has made a new proposal. Oh, he still wants to be able to lay off anyone the Company chooses regardless of how long and loyal that person’s service. But now as he boots these workers out the door, he’ll give them health care for a little while. We’re sure this is a great comfort to people in their 50s, say, who wonder if they will ever be able to work again, especially if they have ongoing health issues.

Of course, seniority is only one of the huge issues on the table. Mr. Hearst does not say a thing — and the Company did not propose — any changes to the proposal to lay employees off and outsource their jobs. Or to eliminate the no-pay-cuts clause.

But the Guild bargaining team will weigh his proposal and respond. It would have been helpful to get it sooner than on Friday afternoon, so we may take some time Tuesday morning to contemplate our reply before meeting with the Company.

We do find it funny that the Company complained last week that we weren’t moving fast enough, then waited until Friday afternoon to produce this minuscule move. And they expect all of us to believe they are moving superfast when in fact they are standing still.

Albany city leaders will vote Monday on a resolution in support of workers at the Times Union. The meeting will be at 7 p.m. Monday on the second floor of Albany City Hall.

The resolution already has 13 sponsors in a 15-member body. It honors the Albany Guild local on its 75th anniversary but notes the recently changed tone in the relationship with the Hearst Corp.

The Times Union is trying to gut the employees’ contract, allowing management to lay off employees and outsource their work. It  also wants to be able to lay off workers no matter how long or loyal their service.

When the union stood up to the newspaper company, the Hearst Corp., threatened to cancel the Guild’s contract on April 9. Guild leaders have warned that such an unprecedented action would lead to boycotts, picketing and other job actions.

The union has offered concessions in an attempt to resolve the dispute, including wage cuts, reduced overtime and other savings.

In its resolution, the Common Council says it backs the union in its fight.

“This body supports the Newspaper Guild of Albany on the occasion of its 75th anniversary for its long history of dedication to the working men and women of Albany and the Capital Region,” the resolution reads. “This body supports the Guild in its fight to keep experienced, loyal employees at work and to keep jobs in the Capital Region and condemns any attempt by the Times Union to cancel its union’s contract.”

The council further resolves that, should the Times Union cancel the Guild’s contract, “this body will stand in solidarity with the union and will support any and all boycotts, picketing or other efforts necessary to achieve a fair outcome.”

Guild members overwhelmingly approved a buyout offer Wednesday in the hope it would reduce the number of layoffs at the Times Union.

The proposal was approved by a vote of 121-0.

Those who take the buyout would get severance pay as outlined in the contract (generally two weeks per year of service.) They also would get the same number of weeks’ health insurance as they get severance with a minimum of health care through the end of the year.

For example, a person with 20 years’ experience would get 40 weeks’ pay and 40 weeks of health insurance.

Guild leaders had strongly recommended approval of the buyout offer.

“The Company would have been satisfied with just laying people off,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said. “We fought hard to get a buyout offer that would enable people to leave voluntarily. The more people take the buyout, the fewer will be laid off. This shows that when both sides work together, we can come up with an agreement that is in everyone’s best interest.”

People will have until April 15 to apply to Human Resources manager Carole Hess. If you had notified the Guild of a potential interest in a buyout, you will have to apply again. (If you’re going to be away burning up some “use it or lose it” vacation time, e-mail Carole in advance.)

A total of 16 people had told the Guild they would consider a buyout. Since then, the health insurance offer has been improved. If you want to know what your pension would be if you left, Carole can get that information for you as well. Asking for it does not obligate you to retire. (But don’t just ask her for the sake of asking either. We like Carole, and we don’t want to swamp her any more than necessary.)

Today’s bright, sunny weather made it a perfect day for workers at the state Capitol to venture outside to grab lunch from one of the vendors that line the streets outside the statehouse.

And it was a perfect day for Guild members to be there too, handing out fliers and letting the state workers know about the Times Union’s desire to outsource jobs and lay off people regardless of how long and loyal their service.

The state workers were stunned and angered at the news that the Company has threatened to cancel the Guild’s contract next Thursday. Inside the Empire State Plaza, many unions had gathered for the annual Lobby Day and were outraged at the Times Union’s treatment of its workers.

The Guild has a solid base of support in the Capital Region. This isn’t a town that takes kindly to “minimizing” contracts.

There is no way to sugarcoat this, folks. George Hearst’s latest e-mail to staffers contains a bald-faced lie.

The publisher states “regrettably, the Guild bargaining committee is not available to meet with our committee at all next week.”

That is false. No formal sessions are scheduled for next week, but the Guild clearly stated to company bargainers and to Hearst himself that it would be glad to receive any proposals the Company wants to make via e-mail. The Guild’s bargaining committee could then discuss it among themselves and respond via e-mail or we would be willing to come in and have a face-to-face discussion.

“We made this comment directly to the Company’s two attorneys during bargaining,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said. “And we ran into George Hearst as we came off the elevator and repeated the message. While we expect the Company to put its spin on what happens in negotiations, we do not expect them to flat out lie about what we say. George Hearst and his two attorneys owe our bargaining team an apology and a retraction.”

O’Brien said it made little sense to spend hours tied up in conference rooms waiting for the Company to make miniscule movements (and then loudly denounce the Guild, which has moved much further much faster). This is especially true when one bargaining committee member, Stacy Wood, is facing potential firing for not selling ads while she negotiates.

The following week, the Guild team is available for four days and even offered to give up its Saturday if talks are bearing fruit.

The rest of Hearst’s memo contains several distortions of fact. The bargaining committee has made clear that the Company’s unprecedented decision to cancel the contract requires we spend time preparing for boycotts, picketing and other actions we hope not to employ. But we made clear we intend to continue to bargain in good faith and offer solutions in the meantime.

“The Company wants it both ways: It wants to threaten to cancel the contract, cutting off the union’s funding and eliminate the right to take grievances to arbitration,” O’Brien said. “And then it wants to pretend that they’re the good guys. It wants to make little to no movement at the bargaining table and then complain that the Guild, which has made far more movement, is the problem.”

The comment made that we regressed on one proposal, requiring that the Publisher review every layoff, is silly. That was our counter to the Company’s claim that a fair way to prevent favoritism was to have the publisher review every layoff done outside of seniority. If the publisher does not want to be involved in reviewing layoffs, that’s fine by us and we’ll withdraw that portion of our proposal.

Of course, the Publisher has nothing to say about a far more damning regression he made. The Company on March 10 proposed to eliminate the rehiring list so that employees could be laid off and someone new could be hired for their job.