“We need to minimize this agreement,” George Hearst said at the bargaining table Monday, holding up your contract.

What does that mean? It means the Company is continuing to demand the unfettered right to outsource your work, lay you off with no protection for seniority, cut your pay, add unreasonable duties and change your days off without your consent.

Isn’t this where negotiations began? Pretty much.

On Monday, Guild bargainers went back on the record in the wake of a memo (see previous post) from the Hearst newspaper in San Antonio. That e-mail message to employees there referred to a meeting recently held in New York City where editors from Hearst newspapers discussed the “coming consolidation plan.”

Guild bargainers wanted to know what that means, especially given that the same memo refers to outsourcing page design and  copy editing work to Houston, 199 miles away from San Antonio. The new computer system in editorial at the Times Union, as well as the e-mail system, is based in Houston as well.

“I am not aware of any specific plans to outsource work to Houston,” Hearst said.

Guild leaders said they found it hard to swallow that the Hearst Corp. had no idea what it would do if given a blank check to outsource work, which is what the Company is proposing, especially in light of the San Antonio memo.

Guild President Tim O’Brien, quoting International Rep. Jim Schaufenbil, noted that when companies are given the unrestrained right to outsource work, they do so.

George Hearst said he would try to find out what the “coming consolidation plan” means and answer Guild bargainers when negotiations resume at 10 a.m. Tuesday in the Executive Conference Room. Members are free to attend on their own time, as quite a few did Monday. (Unfortunately, the Company arrived more than 40 minutes’ late, so most could not stay.)

This stunning memo from San Antonio reveals that the Hearst Corp. is already outsourcing copy editing and page design work to Houston.

And editors from all its newspapers were summoned to discuss the “coming consolidation project.”

In San Antonio, the travel section is already being put together in Houston and the food section will follow in January.

Yes, both cities are in Texas, but they are 199 miles apart. It would be be like having Albany stories edited by staffers at Newsday on Long Island.

Folks, we can’t say it plainer: The Company wants to take your jobs and outsource them. This memo makes it clear why the Times Union’s computer system in editorial and e-mail system is now out of Houston. Read the memo and it will all make sense.

Look around you.

If the Company got its way and could outsource any job, what could go?

Circulation calls. Classified ad sales. Page design. Editing. Advertising and editorial art. Payroll and accounting.

The oh-so-slow new computer system in editorial is based in Houston. Someone there, who has never been to Albany, could edit copy and lay it out on a page as easily (but not as accurately) as we do. E-mails to the calendar desk could be read there, the calendars compiled, edited and sent to a page designer and laid out without anyone in Albany ever looking at it. (Sure, there might be more mistakes, but there are already more getting in because fewer people are proofreading the paper under the new system.)

Sound impossible? It’s not. It’s already happening in our industry. One person even started a “news” Web site in Pasadena, California that hired “reporters” in India to watch the television feed of City Council meetings and write stories about them. (They missed it when a group of black lawmakers walked out in protest because it was off camera.)

It’s not hard to see what gets lost. Quality. Accuracy. (How do you ask how a speaker spells his or her name when you’re not even in the same part of the country or world?)

But many newspapers are going this route as if it’s their salvation. It’s not. It’s their doom. If the Times Union leadership thinks this is the path to follow, it will be the beginning of the end. Whatever you’ll call it in the future, it’s not journalism. It’s not customer service. It’s not news.

But look around you. The question is not what would go. It’s what would stay.

Guild members approved a switch to the MVP health-care plan Friday by a vote of 81-31.

The change takes effect January 1. Members will be able to sign up for a health-savings account with Berkshire Bank that will enable them to set aside money before taxes to pay medical costs. These accounts will enable employees to carry moneyover into the next year. If workers leave or retire, they can either cash out the money (paying a tax penalty) or switch to a tax-exempt IRA.

The 112 members voting is a little less than half the membership, though many people who take the health-insurance buyout said they did not want to decide what insurance other employees receive. Others said they were too torn to vote: They didn’t much like the upfront deductible, but they also thought the union had bigger fights on its hands.

Several of the no votes were quite emphatic. One person wrote “Hell No!”  on their ballot, while another wrote “Tell the Company (Times Union) to stop messing with the Guild employees!!!!”

“Our members had very serious questions about this switch and about having to pay so much money upfront for medical expenses,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said. “In the end, they decided that the switch was worth doing so long as the employee’s share of the deductible remains where it is as long as we remain in this plan. We do appreciate the Company’s efforts to find ways to reduce the costs, but the real way to solve this crisis is to find a national solution.”

Members will vote this Friday on the proposed switch to the MVP health-care plan, and the union is recommending a yes vote to approve the change.

The decision came after negotiations Friday. Executive Board members met briefly at 5 p.m. and voted 5-2 to send the proposal to a membership vote. Voting will be between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. and from 4:30 p.m. to 5:15 p.m. Friday. The results will be counted at the end of voting.

Both sides retained their positions: The union maintains that the MVP plan is not comparable to our existing one and therefore a membership ratification vote is required. The Company maintains that the plans are comparable and it can make the change without membership approval. However, the Company has agreed to allow us to use the cafeteria for the vote Friday.

If the membership were to vote the proposal down, the Company claims it can impose the agreement anyway. The Guild says it would take a grievance to arbitration if the Company were to attempt any such step, and an independent arbitrator would rule as to whether the two plans are comparible.

The Company agreed that it would cover all but $750 of the deductible in 2009 and if the parties retain the same plan in 2010. The Guild did not waive its right to bargain any future changes in the employee’s share of the deductible, and we continue to maintain the contractual language that the Company can only switch to a different plan if it is comparable.

Employees will be able to set up health savings plans through Berkshire Bank. In 2009, the Company will provide upfront payment up to $750 in the case of hardship if an employee requests it. The employee will then have to sign a written authorization to withhold salary to repay the Company. Employees will not be asked to provide proof of financial hardship.

“This plan will save money for most if not all employees as long as the employee share of the deductible remains where it is,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said. “While we do have concerns about what could happen in the future, we retain our right to bargain those changes. We also know that this switch will be a considerable cost savings to the Company. While we agreed to separate out our health insurance from other contractual issues, we believe the Company should reflect the savings we are now enabling them to enjoy elsewhere in their contractual proposal.”