A day after the Company canceled our contract, negotiations resumed without any progress.

Publisher George Hearst said he wants to begin layoffs by month’s end or early May at the latest, but he wants to eliminate those jobs without regard to seniority. He would need a new contractual agreement to do so.

Hearst said the Times Union is looking to lay off 65 to 75 workers between the exempt and Guild ranks. Despite assurances cuts would fall equally among Guild members and management, he went on to estimate that 60 jobs would come out of the 240 the Guild represents and the remaining 10 to 15 would come from the 110 people in the exempt ranks.

As the Guild has already documented, the Times Union is already top heavy with management, with one “manager” for every 2.5 employees.

“The final numbers will show whether the Company is sincere about equally sharing the pain,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said. “But Hearst’s initial estimates make it appear that cuts will fall more heavily on our members.”

The number of layoffs will be reduced by people taking the voluntary buyout, Hearst said.

Guild leaders said they are willing to be flexible in dealing with the seniority issue on layoffs but continued to say it was unfair to leave someone with 30 years’ dedicated service equally vulnerable as a new hire.

Despite their constant talk of flexibility, the Company remained rigid on that idea and on its proposal to be able to outsource any and all jobs.

Here’s a comparison. In his letter canceling the contract, Publisher George Hearst wrote: “We look forward to continuing to bargain with the Guild and hope to bring negotiations to a successful conclusion as soon as possible.”

At one point earlier in negotiations, however, the Company’s attorney and lead negotiator Peter Rahbar said: “We are under no obligation to move.” On Friday, Rahbar made a similar remark right after the parties agreed to three future meeting dates.

“The core of our proposals is going to remain the same,” he said.

The parties have bargaining sessions scheduled for 5:30-8:30 p.m. Wednesday, April 22; Tuesday, April 28; and Wednesday, May 13.

You might as well change the name of the paper to the Times Anti-Union.

In an unprecedented move, the Times Union ignored pleas from dozens of labor leaders and hundreds of readers and canceled our contract Thursday. Immediately after, some 70 Guild members and leaders from other locals took to the streets outside the paper for a picket.

“This is a sad, sad day for Times Union employees, readers and advertisers,” said Guild President Tim O’Brien. “The Company is hellbent on wanting to lay off employees regardless of how loyally they have served and to outsource jobs out of the Capital Region. And because they could not convince our members of the rightness of their cause, they launched an unprecedented attack on our union.”

The negotiations will continue, and the Company cannot change the terms and conditions of the contract. What it means is the Guild has to hand collect dues, although the union is investigating possible legal action, and it cannot take grievances to arbitration. It also means we can picket, strike, and launch boycotts.

“George Hearst falsely claimed we have exaggerated the implications of this move,” O’Brien said. “The reality is this is a union town, and every union member knows what this action means. The Times Union can expect the phones to start ringing off the hook with calls canceling the newspaper. We told the Company the day it first threatened this that it was the dumbest thing the Company can do. They ignored us at their peril. They cannot say they weren’t warned.”

Here’s an interesting post about our contract fight.

The day ended in obnoxious fashion, with the Company handing over a letter cancelling the contract rather than responding to the Guild’s latest comprehensive proposal.

The union altered its contract offer to a four-year agreement. Rather than two payments the first year of $750 each, the Guild altered it to one payment of $1,500 this year, to cover the equivalent of first and second year raises. Employees would get one more $750 payment for 2010 and then a 3 percent raise in the contract’s final year.

The lump-sum payments would not affect the base pay.

The union also altered its proposal on outsourcing, bumping up to allowing the Company to outsource 3 percent of Guild work over the course of a year.

The Company offered one-time payments of $500 this year and next, but did not move at all on either the outsourcing or layoff proposals. While much attention has been paid to the seniority issue, the outsourcing proposal could have far-reaching implications as well.

If the Company was able to lay people off and outsource their work, many departments would be in jeopardy including people who take circulation and classified-ad calls, editorial and advertising artists, people in our business office, features writers and many others.

“This would be a disaster for the newspaper, its readers and advertisers,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said. “Customer service would sharply decline. Advertisers would face more billing problems. We’ve seen the problems Classified Plus has caused, and this would be greatly multiplied.”

The Guild already has experience with what happens when we agree to outsource jobs. The union agreed to allow drivers’ work to be outsourced, and the number of drivers has declined from 49 to five.

Even the Company’s lawyers acknowledged today that journalists who are members of the Newspaper Guild have a right to speak out publicly in support of the union.

Their comments came after Editor Rex Smith sent out a memo right before the Company canceled the contract that implied journalists should think twice about speaking publicly.

“If you find yourself in a position where you can’t keep your opinions to yourself, and you think that may limit your ability to do your job with the independence good journalism demands, we will try to find you an assignment that will not be affected by your conflict of interest,” Smith wrote. “But we place the burden on you to let your supervisor know before a conflict arises.”

Guild bargainers asked the Company if they were claiming that journalists who want to speak on behalf of the Guild had to get Smith’s permission. The Company said that was not the case.

“Guild members have every legal right to speak out on behalf of their union, to walk picket lines, to participate in boycotts, to talk to leaders of other unions and to talk to elected officials or anyone else willing to help us get a fair contract,” Guild President Tim O’Brien. “As a person who believes in free speech, Rex should not be implying that journalists forfeit their rights.”

The issue arose after Guild members who live in Albany spoke to the Albany Common Council Monday in support of legislation backing the Guild.

Smith himself once scoffed on his radio program at the Guild’s initial wage offer during contract negotiations with the Associated Press. He had no hesitation to make his opinion known in that incident, and obviously did not feel the need to reassign himself away from his role as editor overseeing coverage of labor issues or to send a memo to staff implying he had done something wrong.