Wednesday, August 1, marks 5 years, more than 1,800 days since our last raise.

With rising costs, that means there are fewer employees doing more work for less money.

Join us between 2:45–3:15 pm outside Wednesday for free ice cream and to hear about how we can work together for everyone’s benefit.

Turnout was sparse for Thursday’s vote on dental care, but the members who did cast their ballots decided to stick with Empire Blue Cross.

The vote was 17-10 against switching to dental insurance provided by Guardian.

For the most part, members were ambivalent about the switch. Different dentists accepted different insurance, making it hard to gauge the overall impact on the membership as a whole.

Even the Guild leadership had conflicting feelings. President Tim O’Brien learned his dentist might drop Blue Cross and might pick up Guardian, but nothing was certain.

Guild leaders said turnout would have been stronger, and more opposed, if the proposed cap of $2,500 per person had been in the mix. Guardian had agreed to withdraw the cap. But with an estimated savings of only $11 a year, the proposal did little to drive members to vote or to want to switch.

“We remain open to discussing ways to save whenever they arise,” O’Brien said. “Summer is a tough time to rivet people’s attention on this subject, especially with so little savings at stake.”

We’re looking to get up-to-date contact information for all our members, and you can help by completing this form. Do so by Tuesday July, 24 and be eligible for a gift card drawing!

Enter on time and you will be eligible for one of two $25 gift cards from Professor Java’s that can be used in the cafeteria or in their Wolf Road location. Drawing to be held on Friday, July 27.

Guild members will decide whether to approve a possible switch to the Guardian dental plan or to stick with Empire Blue Cross. The vote will take place this Thursday from 11–1 pm and 5–6:30 pm in Executive Conference Room 2. The switch is contingent on all other unions in the building agreeing to the move.

Guardian has agreed not to place any kind of cap on how much coverage an employee can receive in a year, while not changing the rate it would offer. Originally the plan had proposed a cap of $2,500 for each family member.

For Guild members, the switch would save about $11 a year.

The insurance brokers from Rowlands & Barranca told union leaders last month that Guardian offers a broader network of dentists. If a dentist is not a member of the network, Guardian would still reimburse the provider directly whereas Blue Cross requires the employee to pay upfront and be reimbursed. The brokers also said Guardian offers a better discount.

The Guild’s leaders had encouraged members to talk to their own dentists’ office, ask about whether they accept Guardian and whether they think the coverage and cost to the patient is better or worse than Empire. If you have not already done so, we highly recommend you do before the vote.

Our own conversations have made clear some dentists accept Empire Blue Cross, others take Guardian, and the discounts are better for an in-network dentist but dentists outside the network still often take the insurance.

CLICK HERE for a list of participating dentists.

The company stressed it was offering it as an optional switch, not one they were seeking to require.

You can find information on Guardian at its website, www.glic.com. The plan we are being offered is the DentalGuard Preferred PPO.

When the company announced our legal settlement last month, its Executive Committee wrote “we believe that we acted in a lawful manner.” But a posting that went up Monday admits the truth: The company finally acknowledges it broke the law.

As part of the settlement, the company posted a notice on its Intranet and on bulletin boards in features, advertising, advertising art and in the cafeteria. (You can read the full text there and in a bulletin we will share with our members Tuesday. Throughout this process, we have tried to avoid putting the names of the 11 workers on our blog as much as we can, and we’d like to avoid doing so now too to protect their privacy.)

Here is what the final paragraph says: “WE WILL make [the 11 workers] whole consistent with a settlement reached by all parties for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of our unlawful action against them.” (The emphasis is ours.)

The posting must remain up for 60 days. You can check it out for yourselves.

As for layoffs, we believe they are not necessary, as the staff has continued to be cut. The company must give notice and bargain buyouts first, and we believe there would be sufficient interest to make involuntary layoffs unnecessary.

And finally, the company has stated the returning workers put the company “over budgeted staffing levels.” One is returning to a features slot, where a colleague just retired and another is on maternity leave. There is one other reporter among four exempt editors. Clearly this reporter is very much needed and does not displace anyone.

The company has known since 2010 a hearing officer ordered the reinstatement of 11 employees. It has known since 2011 that its appeal was denied unanimously by the NLRB. The company has had sufficient time to budget and plan for this day.