Publisher George Hearst threatened to impose a deductible of $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families Monday if the Guild did not agree to a 24 percent annual hike in health care costs.

Guild President Tim O’Brien warned Hearst that such an action would be illegal.

Guild officers are seeking a location for a membership meeting this week to gather your input. We expect to know when and where later Tuesday.

Hearst has been demanding that the union start paying 23 percent of the costs of the company’s reimbursements for its share of the deductible and of the fee charged by its plan administrator. To do so would mean employees’ health care costs would grow by more than a third.

Under the imposed conditions, the company cannot change the definition of what the parties have previously agreed constitutes “total cost.” The company is seeking to have union members cover part of the company’s reimbursement to exempt employees, members of other unions and people on COBRA as well as Guild members.

Under the imposed conditions, the company must offer a health care plan that is comparable. Hearst insisted that only refers to the benefits offered, and he can remove the company share of the deductible and yet the plan would remain comparable.

O’Brien said that is not true, and Hearst’s own words in the 2008 negotiations that got the parties into the high deductible plan show that changing the size of the deductible could render the plan not comparable.

Mechanical unions at the newspaper accepted the company’s argument and settled for paying half the increased cost. If the Guild followed the same formula, its members would pay $9.24 a week more or 24 percent. At the same time, the company’s year over year costs would increase 12.7 percent.

“This is not about the price of health care increasing,” O’Brien said. “We are ready and willing to pay the same percentage increase as the Times Union. This is about trying to shift more costs onto the backs of employees who have not had a raise in more than five years. The publisher had said a 15 percent increase in year over year costs was unacceptable to the company, but he has no qualms about demanding his employees pay 24 percent more — or face an unbearable financial burden if Guild members think that’s unacceptable.”

The Guild offered late Friday to either keep our health care just as it is next year or to alter the 90/10 split of medical costs so it starts and ends sooner.

The Guild said it would be willing to have employees start paying 10 percent of medical costs once they have received $1,500 of medical care for an individual or $3,000 for a family.

While that would mean some people start paying sooner, the cap would shift too so that the same numbers apply. The 10 percent share would end after another $1,500 in spending for an individual and $3,000 for a family.

The $750 deductible employees pay initially would not change.

The result would save those with the highest medical bills a little money. More people would save, though a few would spend a little bit more at the lower end.

Both approaches the Guild would accept did not call for the health care costs to explode by a third as the company proposes. Under the company proposal, employees would see their costs rise almost $14 a week.

While union members would see increases of more than 30 percent, the company’s cost would go up less than 13 percent.

Other unions bargaining with the company accepted its argument that “total costs” include paying a percentage of the employer’s hired plan administrator and of the company deductible. But they said it was too much to be asked to assume payment of all that in one year and offered to pay $2 extra a week toward the added cost rather than the $10 extra the company wants.

As Guild President Tim O’Brien noted, each union has its own bargaining history. Our attorney Barbara Camens has reviewed our contract and the imposed conditions and advised us that the company cannot under our circumstances impose changing what has constituted total costs for health care.

Under the contract language still in effect, the company has to offer either the current plan or a comparable one. That’s why In recent years members have voted on changes when the union determined the new plan was not comparable to the previous one.

After the meeting Friday, the Guild found its bulletin from when the high deductible plan was first negotiated in 2008. At the time, the union quoted Publisher George Hearst saying if the deductible increased significantly, the new plan would not be comparable and negotiations would have to occur.

That’s still true.

The parties meet again Monday.

The Newspaper Guild has been advised by its attorney, Barbara Camens, that the company cannot legally change what the parties have previously agreed constitutes the “total cost” of health care and add new costs onto the employees.

The legal advice comes as the company is seeking to make Guild and other union members pay some of the costs for the insurance broker and for the company’s share of the deductible.

Camens told the local Tuesday that under the imposed conditions, the relevant part of the contract remains in effect. Until now both both the Company and the Guild have understood the terms “total cost” to refer to premium costs. That is how the contract has been consistently applied and that is how an arbitrator or the NLRB would apply the contract language.

Since the company has never before included those costs, Camens said, it cannot legally change the definition now.

“Based on the advice of our counsel, we informed the Company today we would oppose any effort to shift these costs onto our members,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said. “We support keeping the current Blue Shield plan with our members paying the same year over year percentage increase as the Company.”

The company proposal is to shift $70,000 of those costs to Guild members. That would cost each enrolled employee about $500 extra a year or $10 a week for those added costs alone.

Without the cost shift, Guild members would be looking at an increase of about $4.50 a week.

Union leaders met again with the company Monday about next year’s health care coverage and asked a number of questions after getting data we sought.

The company’s proposal would raise year over year costs for Guild members by more than 30 percent. The company’s costs would rise less than 13 percent.

Depending on the plan selected, it could raise weekly costs for members by between $12.69 and $13.94. Some $10 of that would be the result of paying part of the reimbursement for the company’s share of the deductible, which we’ve never been asked to cover before.

At issue is an attempt by the company to say the unions have not been paying all of the “total costs” for the plan. The Guild is seeking legal advice from its International on the company’s position.

A number of issues arose in today’s meeting.

Data given to the Guild showed members are to be reimbursed about $230,000 this year by the company for its portion of the deductible. Last year, when 14 more people were in the plan, that number was $261,680.16.

The company is seeking to make the union pay 23 percent of $600,000, which it says is the total cost of reimbursing employees. The Guild learned Monday that number includes exempt employees, members of other unions, and people paying COBRA. The Guild said our members and the members of other unions should not be made to reimburse people who are not in the bargaining unit.

The company replied that since we are all in one plan, that affects how the rates are set and the costs should be divided equally.

The company is also contending the unions should share in the cost of the insurance broker who negotiates and administers the program. The Guild said since the unions did not decide to hire the broker, did not pick the broker and the broker does not work for the unions, we should not pay any portion of the firm’s pay.

The company (and the broker) insisted that legally the broker’s fee could be counted as part of the “total cost.”

The union also pointed out that if our members are going to have to pay a percentage of the company’s share of the deductible, then the company should pay its percentage of the up to $750 our members pay at the start of every year. Again, the company balked and argued that the $750 was not part of the health insurance plan but the company’s share of the reimbursement is.

All of these arguments raised legal questions. After the meeting, the Guild turned to its International to ask for advice.

The Guild, mailers and pressmen agreed to meet with the company again at 4 p.m. Wednesday. The unions also said that they intended to put a proposal forth by Friday.

We’ve asked our International for answers as quickly as possible to help guide us in our decision-making. We will keep members updated and will schedule a membership meeting once we have some more clarity on the legal issues.

Guild President Tim O’Brien told the company it is difficult to ask our members to pay a third more for health care when members have not had a raise in more than five years. Publisher George Hearst insisted those were separate issues.

“We will continue to do the research needed to get the fairest deal we can for our members,” O’Brien said. “We believe the proposal as it is is unacceptable, but we are glad to work with the other unions to try to find a solution.”

Leaders from the three unions at the newspaper continued their discussion Tuesday about next year’s health insurance.

No conclusions were reached, and the parties agreed to meet again Monday.

The main issue is the company’s attempt to make employees start paying the same percentage of the deductible reimbursement that we pay of the insurance premium. For Guild members under the imposed conditions, that number is frozen at 23 percent.

During previous years, the parties agreed the union members would pay the first $750 of medical expenses and the company would pay the rest up to $2,000 for an individual and $4,000 for a family. Now the company wants Guild members to pay 23 percent of that reimbursement, which the company estimated at $600,000 next year.

(In an earlier bulletin, we incorrectly said the company wanted us to pay the full $600,000. We apologize for the error.)

The result — which we reported accurately — would be Guild members seeing health care costs rise more than 30 percent, while the company’s would rise less than 13 percent.

The unions learned Tuesday that the $600,000 figure is higher than what the company actually spent to reimburse workers. Two years ago, the company spent about $495,000 toward its share of the deductible. Last year, the company spent $514,000. This year, the TU expects to spend $525,000.

The union leaders from the Guild, mailroom and press room asked for several pieces of information. They include the exact figures for the reimbursements and data for each union on how many members reached the top of the deductible.

All of the unions said they were not yet in a position to make a proposal. The leaders are meeting among themselves Monday before meeting with the company.

Guild President Tim O’Brien also asked a question many members have raised: Could employees be given an option where they pay more upfront in return for not having to face the potential pact of the 90/10 split?

The company and its brokers said that would drive up costs for everyone and it is less expensive to have all employees covered under one plan.

The meeting began with Publisher George Hearst objecting to a handful of Guild members being present to observe the health care discussion. O’Brien replied members had attended in the past without objection. Leaders of the other unions had no objection to our members observing.

In the interest of moving the discussion along, the members left as the Guild promised to keep them informed.