As he likes to do every so often during bargaining, Associate Publisher George Hearst asked union leaders today when the parties could pick up the pace and bring negotiations to a speedier end.

Guild bargainers replied that the Company should look no further than its own proposal to see why negotiations might take a while.

“So far, your list includes a series of givebacks, many of them sweeping and many of them an extremely difficult sell to our members,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said on behalf of the bargaining team. “We’ll need you to be much more specific about what it is you’re really seeking.”

O’Brien noted the Company had asked the union to separate the proposed newsroom reorganization from the rest of contract talks. The union did so and worked out a swift agreement with the Company.

“We think if the Company wants to move more aggressively toward a contract, it needs to withdraw some of its most onerous proposals such as the elimination of 1(D), the proposal on ending seniority protection during layoffs, the elimination of the no-pay-cuts clause and changing days off without consent,” he added.

Section 1(D), which the Company wants to eliminate, says the Company cannot displace or replace staff positions and give that work to an independent contractor or nonunion part-timer. It protects us from our work being outsourced.

In 1994, the union made an exception to the language affecting drivers. At the time, there were 49. Today, there are five. (And, O’Brien noted, the Company assured the Guild at the time of the agreement that it had no intention to gut the drivers’ workforce.)

That’s when Guild bargainer Stacy Wood of advertising asked Hearst: “Have you seen ‘Frankenstein?’ ” If the union presented those proposals to the workforce, she said, members would be inclined to grab pitchforks and torches and chase the bargaining committee members into the hills.

Employees came to the bargaining table Tuesday to discuss the stunning amount of work they are being asked to do, and they objected to the Company’s proposal to remove language that bars the Times Union from imposing “unreasonable duties” constituting a speed-up.

District Manager Mark Corelli discussed his role as the only person in a Saratoga Springs depot at a time when the Company agreed to start delivering the Saratogian. Besides the Times Union, DM’s also oversee delivery of the New York Post, Daily News, Wall Street Journal and New York Times.

“I know it brings in revenue to the Times Union, but now I am not only responsible to my own company but I have to answer to people at other companies,” he said. The Saratogian supplied incomplete information, and it had some routes on streets where Times Union carriers did not go.

During the weeks surrounding the start of the Saratogian’s delivery, he said, he worked 90 hours and was paid overtime. Though problems remain coordinating the delivery of multiple publications, he has now been told he should stop working overtime.

Corelli said he recently took the first full week off he’s had in seven years and the first Sunday he’s had off in a year.

Renee Bernard of classified advertising was recently moved upstairs from the front desk. She said she was brought in to replace a colleague who left but has been told she also will be trained to take recruitment ads. She’s being taught copy input. When two other employees left, one colleague had to do their work in addition  to her own. When she was sick, there was no backup.

Patti Reynolds, an automotive sales rep., recited a stunning list of products she’s expected to sell. At the same time, commissions have been sharply reduced. “What kind of a job can we do under these circumstances?” she said. “Speedup has no place in the Times Union.”

Guild President Tim O’Brien asked the Company why it was proposing to eliminate this sentence: “There shall be no imposition of unreasonable duties constituting in fact a speedup.”

Associate Publisher George Hearst acknowledged the union had never taken a grievance to arbitration on the issue, but said the language had led the union to sometimes ask about employees’ workload. “It becomes an unproductive discussion,” he said.

Asked to cite a specific time when such an “unproductive discussion” occurred, Hearst could not do so.

There was some good news at the bargaining table. The parties reached a tentative agreement on interns that means the union will be provided with information, upon its request, including the duration of any internship and any compensation or credit being provided. Internships are to be of a limited duration and cannot displace or replace existing staff positions.

Guild bargainer Stacy Wood proved an articulate advocate for her colleagues in advertising Monday.

During contract talks, Wood responded to George Hearst’s comments that the industry is changing and his questions about whether the publisher has successfully communicated about the challenges the newspaper faces. Wood replied that ad sales people especially understand what is happening, but the Company’s response to the economic slowdown and industry changes has been to target the staff.

“Management’s style has been punitive. Morale has taken a nosedive,” Wood said. “The outrageous goals with no hope of making them and if you don’t make them, you’re shown the door. We want to be here. We are spending more and more of our time trying to fix the problems that are coming up. It’s not that we’re not into the program. We just want to be treated better. And that’s not going to cost you a penny to do. We want some respect for the work that we do. I think if the tone were to change, the morale problem would turn around.”

Guild President Tim O’Brien mentioned the public display of boards that rank ad sales people and list who have not reached their goals. He called it a “public paddling” that was not motivational. Hearst brought up the board the Guild put up in response, ranking managers in general in how they were motivating staff but not listing any names. Company managers, not catching the irony, were outraged. They not only demanded the board come down. They removed it first without discussing it with the Guild. (The union agreed to keep the board down and urged management to show similar compassion by removing its own board. Instead a second one was put up in classified.)

The Company has articulated that these are tough times in the newspaper industry, O’Brien said. What it hasn’t made clear is that its leaders know how to help sales staff navigate through these rough waters.

“It’s not the sense of being on a team. It’s more like you’re rowing the boat and someone is standing over you with a whip,” O’Brien said.

That was the Company’s reaction to the Web video where members voiced their concern about the Company’s proposal to be able to change employees’ days off without consent at any time — even to force people to work split days off.

Associate Publisher George Hearst said he and Publisher Mark Aldam watched the video. Their response was to ask if the Company had failed to communicate the current state of the industry and how it is affecting the Times Union.

Guild bargainer Mary Fultz asked what forcing people to split days off or allowing their days off to be changed without consent had to do with the state of the industry. “This isn’t McDonald’s,” she said.

“You’re asking us to give up a structure that gives a more professional environment,” Fultz said.

“The enterprise needs to be flexible,” Hearst replied. He said it wouldn’t make sense for managers to penalize people by switching their days off in a way that was harmful to their family life. Guild bargainers replied the Company was seeking way too much power over workers’ lives, and some of its managers would abuse the language if given free rein.

“Flexibility is nice, but where is our flexibility?” Fultz asked.

Bargainer John DeMania noted the language already says days off can be changed without consent if it is necessary for publication.

The Company said the issue arose when two long-time librarians were forced to work weekend days after several decades of service by each to the Company. The Guild filed a grievance, which the parties settled on the verge of going to arbitration. The librarians were moved back to a Monday to Friday schedule, and both of them took the recent buyout.

The Company cited this as a “roadblock” to implementing change and claimed the librarians “were discomforted by the fact that the businsess had changed.” Guild President Tim O’Brien said the librarians were given little to no work to do that had anything to do with producing the next day’s newspaper. He said the Company’s fantasy of why the librarians were needed on weekends did not match the reality of what they were doing.

Hearst replied it may have been true there was insufficient work for the librarians on weekends, but they should have seen the workplace would eventually “evolve” to justify the shift of their schedules. O’Brien said the Company should have a clear need for people to work weekends before assigning them to do so.

Advertising employee Patti Reynolds hasn’t taken a sick day in 22 years.

It’s not that she hasn’t been ill. She’s come to work with everything from a sinus infection to a broken toe (not to mention Montezuma’s revenge!)

“I always felt it was important to get to work if at all possible because I never knew when I would really need the time,” Reynolds told bargainers from both sides. “It was always in the back of my mind that the time would come when I would catch the big one or the dreaded ‘C’ would come knocking on my door.”

She did that, she said, because she knew the Times Union had a policy of allowing seriously ill employees to recapture unused back sick time — a policy the Company has said it may propose to end. Reynolds articulated why the policy serves both employees and the Company well and should not be abandoned.

“I am not alone. There are many employees who have perfect attendance or who have used very little sick time for these same reasons,” she said. “It has come to my attention this company is considering abolishing the ‘banked sick time’ policy. I can’t imagine what that would accomplish. If anything, I can only imagine all the additional sick days employees would now take.”

Bargaining Committee member Stacy Wood, who was out of work for months after a car accident, said: “It was vital to me to be able to go back and take that time.”

The union members also advocated for the Guild’s proposal to allow workers to donate a portion of their sick time to a seriously ill colleague. Wood noted all the people in advertising who have battled cancer, and Guild President Tim O’Brien and committee member Mary Fultz added names from downstairs.

Chris Benoit of advertising said he would love the chance to help a seriously ill colleague by donating some of his time. The Guild proposal would cap the contribution at 30 percent of sick time so no employee would be left without sick leave should he or she become ill.

Associate Publisher George Hearst said he appreciated the remarks. “We respect what you’re saying, and we will take that into consideration,” he said.