We’ll give the Company its due. After months of refusing to budge on the top two issues in negotiations, it finally presented new proposals Friday on both outsourcing of work and seniority protections during layoffs.

We’re not saying we’re thrilled with the proposals, but we’re glad to see that they are at least moving off the positions they’ve held since Day 1.

“While we didn’t need the threat of a cancelled contract to prompt us to offer concessions, the potential for boycotts and picketing apparently has inspired the Company to start moving,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said. “We’re grateful for that, although we are still a long ways apart.”

The Company’s proposal on layoffs would still give them the power to choose whomever they want to discharge. In a case where someone was let go out of seniority order, the publisher would review and approve the decision. The Guild would also be given 45 days’ notice of the decision and would be able to discuss the factors used for selection.

The Company is also still calling for elimination of the rehiring list.

The Company’s attorneys argued that giving the publisher final say would eliminate the element of favoritism raised by the Guild.

“It’s not in the Company’s interest, either, to fire someone because some low-level manager targets them because of union activity or skin color…,” attorney Mark Batten said.

Guild Bargaining Committee member John DeMania said it was doubtful the publisher would want to be seen as reversing the decision of one of his managers. He also might not be familiar with the employee given the demands of his own job.

On the issue of outsourcing, the Company proposed that it would give the union four weeks’ notice of any plans to outsource including specific work to be outsourced, where it will go, and what the other costs and benefits would be compared to keeping the work in-house.

The Guild would have a chance to make an offer to keep the work, but the Company’s proposal does not require that proposal to be accepted.

The union also would be given a chance to discuss how employees might be redeployed. The parties would also work together on attracting work from other newspapers, as is now happening in circulation and advertising.

“We appreciate that the Company has moved,” O’Brien said. “That’s really what we needed to break the logjam. We will study their proposal and provide a counteroffer of our own.”

The Guild’s bargaining team will meet at the union office Friday morning to formulate its response, which will be delivered sometime later in the day.

The Company rejected a Guild offer Tuesday to increase employees’ share of health-care costs, instead insisting on a 9 percent leap within less than two years. The two out of town lawyers now bargaining the contract also refused to provide information vital to employees deciding whether to seek a buyout.

At the same time the two parties were bargaining, Publisher George Hearst was meeting in the room next door with a large group of local labor leaders who let the Company know in no uncertain terms that threatening to cancel a contract in the Capital Region would not fly.

A written agreement on a buyout offer was signed. The Guild Bargaining Committee asked what positions the Company will seek to eliminate so members can decide whether to apply for a buyout. The Company claimed it could not specify a single area that could be affected.

“It’s a work in progress,” said Peter Rahbar, a New York City-based lawyer for the Hearst Corp.

Guild bargainers said they found it hard to believe the Company could offer no idea to members what jobs are on the line at a time it is asking people to consider taking buyouts.

The Guild’s bargaining committee also offered a proposal Tuesday to raise employees’ share of health-care costs.

That would mean the employee share of health-insurance costs would rise to 18 percent on Dec. 1, 2009; 20 percent on 12/01/10; 22 percent on 12/01/11; 23 percent on 12/01/12; and 25 percent on 12/01/13.

In return, the union would maintain language in the contract that any plan offered by the Company remain comparable. We also sought language that states our union would pay no more than any other bargaining unit and to lock in the deductible at no more than $750 for the life of the contract.

“We thought that was a pretty generous offer, especially since the Company has proposed no wage increases for three years,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said.

The dates and percentages are the same as in the Teamsters’ contract.

The Company’s response was typical of its behavior throughout these negotiations. Offer ’em a concession, they demand even more.

They proposed employees’ share of health-care costs rise January 1 from 16 to 22 percent share, costing everyone an extra $432 in one year. Costs would rise again to 25 percent in 2011 — a nine percent leap in less than two years while you get no raise.

They’d agree to the comparability language — which is already in our contract and is in other unions’ agreements — but not to freezing the size of the deductible at $750 over the life of the agreement.

The Company also returned to the table with no movement on what it calls the two most vital issues of these negotiations: outsourcing and seniority protections for layoffs. While the Guild has offered movement on both those issues, the Company hasn’t moved on outsourcing and regressed on seniority March 10 by saying it wants to eliminate a rehire list if layoffs occur.

A vote on the buyout offer will be scheduled for Wednesday in the plant, and the Guild is strongly recommending a yes vote. More details will be forthcoming on an exact time for the vote. (We’ll have two shifts, one at lunch time and one in the evening, to catch the maximum number of members.)

The parties were joined at the table Tuesday by James Magnuson, a federal mediator who is trying to help the parties reach an agreement before the April 9 date when the Company has said it will cancel our contract.

The Guild very much appreciates the leaders of so many unions — from NYSUT, the building trades, PEF, the Capital Area Labor Federation and others — for showing their solidarity with us. We’ll have more details on their conversation in a future post.

After reading Publisher George Hearst’s latest e-mail, a colleague stopped me in the hall.

“Did the other unions agree to get rid of their seniority?”

 

Umm, no.

 

“Did they agree to let the Company outsource their jobs?”

 

Umm, no.

 

“Then what the hell is George talking about?”

In his message, the publisher said the other four unions in the plant had all agreed to offer concessions due to the changed nature of the business and acted as if your Guild representatives were just refusing to be helpful.

Of the other contracts, I am most familiar with the Teamsters’ pact in the mailroom. And, yes, they made some significant concessions. They lowered starting pay and extended how long it would take to get to the top scale. They made some changes to scheduling that give more, to use George’s favoritie word, flexibility on bringing people in when there is work to be done. And they agreed to “insource” work that they would do, handling packaging from the Connecticut papers, for example.

That all sounds pretty reasonable, doesn’t it?   Let me amend this comment a bit, because we didn’t mean to make it sound as if these were not difficult decisions and significant gives from our brothers and sisters in the other unions. They were, and we respect that. But comparing those concessions to what the Company is demanding from us is like comparing apples to orangutans. Allowing unlimited outsourcing and picking and choosing employees to lay off strikes at the fundamental reasons employees have a union.

Of course, the publisher is not proposing we accept the pay raises he gave the Teamsters. Or the bonus days for every sick day they don’t take. Or the generous buyout provisions. (At the time the agreement was reached last year, the Company envisioned building a new press and eventually reducing the ranks of the mailers.) The Company only tends to compare one contract to another when it wants a union to give up something, not when one’ s benefits are better than another.

And Mr. Hearst provides an inaccurate description of the Guild’s statement that the Company has declared “war” on us. We made that comment in reference to the Company’s unprecedented decision to cancel our contract, not as a comment on its bargaining proposals.

The publisher has also repeatedly asserted that he canceled the contract because negotiations were not moving as quickly as he wanted. They’d have moved quicker if he had shown up on time, not canceled as many sessions (because he was too busy with meetings over a new press that now appears doomed) and had not gone five weeks between sessions and then showed up empty-handed.

And here is one last undeniable fact: On the two major issues that Mr. Hearst calls central to these negotiations, the Guild has presented concessions on both. We’ve offered guidelines for outsourcing and to change the rules on layoffs from by department to by job title.

The Company? Its proposal on outsourcing is unchanged. Its proposal on seniority worsened, eliminating the rehire rules.

This week, we have three consecutive days of bargaining. We come to the table, as we have since day one, willing to compromise. We also come knowing we have the full support of the community and our membership should the Company continue to refuse to compromise on the most critical issues we face.

Nicely said, though I think the thoughts  apply to many other roles in the building as well. We’re deadline-driven, multi-tasking, hard-working employees, and any employer would be lucky to have us.

Visitors to the Outdoor Show this weekend at the Empire State Plaza learned “there is something fishy” happening at the Times Union.

Guild members distributed more than 1,000 fliers to show goers letting them know about our battle for a fair contract at the Times Union. It is part of the Guild’s effort to communicate to the public about the Company’s threat to cancel our contract April 9. And it is part of the effort to get the Times Union to understand the dangerous territory they have entered with their threat.

More such actions are planned.

In a region where 30 percent of the workforce is unionized, the Guild has plenty of support. Union leaders through the Capital District Area Labor Federation have made an appointment for Tuesday to talk to Publisher George Hearst to help him understand the tremendous support the Guild has in the region.

The parties are scheduled for three days of bargaining this coming week, Wednesday through Friday, and we’re hoping all of this mobilization work will pay off in an improved  attitude on the Company’s part at the bargaining table.