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.

The parties had a productive day in bargaining Wednesday, with the Guild proposing a 5-year pact that would offer $750 bonuses for the first three years instead of raises.

In the fourth year, when we hope the economy has recovered, we proposed a 2.5 percent raise. In the final year, we proposed a 2.75 percent pay hike.

“Unlike percentage raises, the bonuses would be a one-time payment that would not increase base pay,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said. “It would enable workers to get some extra money. The Company has made clear it was not interested in our proposal to cut wages to save jobs, so we believe the workers who remain and will likely see a heavier workload should at least get some extra money.”

The Company did not respond to the wage offer, but praised the Guild committee for its creative approach. A response will likely come during Thursday’s negotiations, which begin at 10:30 a.m. in the Executive Conference Room.

At day’s end, the Company said it has not decided whether to cancel the contract Thursday as it had threatened to do. Instead, company lawyers said they would leave that issue hovering over negotiations. The Guild is ready to implement an action plan should that occur.

The parties did make progress on a number of issues:

• We are near to finalizing an agreement that would enable members to donate three days a year of sick time to any seriously ill colleague who’d used up their own sick leave.

• The Company agreed to move the currently exempt position of director of research into the Guild. Initially, that employee oversaw two librarians but those employees retired and were not replaced. The union argued successfully the job was no longer supervisory. The parties also agreed that the former director of security, who has been doing the mail clerk’s duties, will move into the Guild as well.

• The Guild expressed a willingness to agree to the Company’s demand that people whose spouses work at the Times Union not be eligible for the health-insurance buyout. In return, the Guild said any increase in health care share should occur at the same rate as in the Teamsters’ contract. That means it would rise from the current 16 percent to 18 percent Dec. 1 this year; 20 percent on Dec. 1, 2010; 22 percent on Dec. 1, 2011; 23 percent on Dec. 1, 2012; and 25 percent on Dec. 1, 2013. (The Company would have the share increase to 22 percent on Jan. 1, 2010 and 25 percent on Jan. 1, 2011.)

The parties also had a thorough discussion about the six advertising sales positions spread out over four different pay classifications. Three of those titles have no one in them. There also was discussion about giving employees more input on commissions.

Increasing the contribution to the pension fund was also discussed. The contribution has remained at 85 cents an hour for more than 20 years. With the stock market woes, the Guild argued for more money to help prevent benefit cuts. The Company opposed any increase.

Wow. Check out this story.

Brightly colored signs covered every inch of a series of conference tables in an upstairs meeting room at the Albany Labor Temple tonight.

Times Union employees showed their artistic sides as they stood side by side, drawing inspiration for a possible picket this Thursday if the newspaper follows through on its threat to cancel our contract.

The signs all contain different messages: “A Local Newspaper Needs Local Employees,” “Where’s the Loyalty?”, “Keep Jobs Local,” “Honk to Save Local Jobs” etc. Thanks to all who took time out of their busy lives to show how creative they are.

The Company made the unprecedented decision to cancel our contract this Thursday, a fight we did not ask for and have been working to prevent. Unless the Times Union management changes their minds in the next 24 hours, a very public battle will be launched as this week ends.

One member of Albany’s Common Council sent Publisher George Hearst an e-mail Tuesday afternoon. President Pro Tempore Richard Conti noted a resolution in support of the Guild has strong support but the council  set it aside until April 20 to give Hearst a chance to be heard.

“I would urge in a similar act of good faith that the Times-Union not cancel the Guild’s contract this Thursday,” he concluded.

We hope the Times Union heeds his advice. But if not, our signs are ready and so are we.

In an effort to move contract negotiations forward, the Guild made a major proposal Tuesday that would allow the Company to lay off a limited number of people outside seniority. Employees who lost their jobs as a result would get enhanced severance pay and benefits.

The Guild proposed that the Company could “skip” people with demonstrable exceptional skills or ability. The Company would have to provide evidence of such skills or ability, and the union would have the right to file a grievance. All employees must have been offered equal access to any special skills training.

The number of employees who could be skipped would be limited to no more than 10 percent of those laid off and no more than two people in a job classification.

If the Company laid off 70 people, as it has threatened to do, that means it could “skip” seven employees.

Those who get laid off outside of seniority would be entitled to one week of additional severance for every four months, or majority thereof, they’ve worked at the Times Union.  Essentially, that means a person would get three weeks of severance pay for every year of service. The Guild also proposed that employees so laid off would get 18 months of health-care coverage.

If a person was within 18 months of retirement, the Company would also give them full credit (and make the appropriate contribution to the pension fund) so they could retire when they reached retirement age.

“No one should be laid off a few months’ shy of retirement age and lose the benefit they worked so long, hard and loyally to achieve,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said.

While the decision to weaken seniority protections was difficult and might upset some of the Guild’s members, O’Brien said the union is trying to balance the Company’s stated need for flexibility with the union members’ desire for some level of job protection.

O’Brien said it would be unfair to allow the Company to lay off the most senior employee in a department while keeping a person with limited  experience here who might be looking to move on soon. He cited specific examples in editorial: It would be inappropriate to put Carol DeMare, a reporter with more than three decades of experience, at risk of a layoff while “skipping” an employee like Marc Parry, an excellent reporter who just left the newspaper (and we’re proud of him) to take a job at the Chronicle of Higher Education he’d actively been pursuing for months.

“Our proposal would give the Company a fair chance to save some people with special skills, while not putting our most senior employees, the people who would find it hardest to get a new job, at risk,” O’Brien said.

The Company still wanted a blank check to lay off anyone no matter how long or loyal their service. Those who lost a job outside seniority would get three weeks’ pay per year of service and health insurance for the same number of weeks as the dismissal pay. The Company would cap both at a maximum of 52 weeks.

The Company also proposed to eliminate the current language that requires laid-off employees to be placed on a rehiring list. Instead, the Company proposes to create a rehiring list for one year that would not require management to rehire anybody.

O’Brien called the proposal a “RINO” — Rehiring in Name Only.

The negotiations are set to resume at 10 a.m. Wednesday in the Executive Conference Room. Members are free to attend on their own time.