Discussions on the proposed buyout will resume at 3 p.m. Thursday.

The Guild committee has been reviewing data on the makeup of the editorial department. We examined the age and length of service of our members and calculated multiple examples of what retiring could mean to workers.

For many, retiring now could mean a loss of $3,000 to $4,000 a year in pension income as well as a reduced Social Security payout.

The department has 19 members who would be affected by the company’s proposed cap of one year’s severance. We have 12 members with 25 or more years of service.

To prevent layoffs among our newest members, we’re hoping the company will agree on some way to enhance the buyout for our longest-serving colleagues.

Any employee who is considering taking a buyout should ask Human Resources Director Carole Hess for a calculation of their pension benefits.

The members of the committee bargaining the buyout are President Tim O’Brien, Chief Steward Brian Nearing, Vice President Jeff Boyer and page designer Gillian Scott.

Once a buyout agreement is reached, a membership meeting and voting time will be scheduled.

The Guild and the Company continue to discuss the proposed buyout. The union is examining data on how it could affect employees’ retirement.

Late Friday, Publisher George Hearst responded to the Guild’s proposal with a few changes. He said he would accept including a calculation of differentials in what an employee normally receives as part of the buyout. He agreed to extend the offer beyond editorial, though he cautions people in other departments, especially advertising, were not likely to get it.

Hearst also said he’d agree to keep the employee share of health-care costs at 21 percent for those taking the buyout. But he also balked at paying those who decline insurance half the premium, a standard in previous buyouts.

A central issue in the Guild’s discussion is the large number of editorial employees who are at the age where they could consider taking early retirement. For some workers, taking a buyout would cut sharply into their pensions, making them reluctant to do so.

The union originally proposed eliminating both the one-year cap on the buyout and the early retirement penalty. Understanding that changing the early retirement penalty requires amending the pension plan, the union is now looking at other options for sweetening the deal in a way to make it more palatable for senior employees.

Anyone who might want to consider the buyout should ask Carole Hess in the Human Resources office to have their pension payout calculated. The formula is your five highest consecutive salaries times your credited years of service times .015. We caution you against making the calculation yourself for retirement planning purposes. You should make sure you get accurate, official numbers.

For a 55-year-old with 29 years’ experience, the full pension at 65 would be $21,750 a year. The two available options to retire at that age in 2012 would mean a choice between backdating the years of service to 2006, which would set the payment at $17,250 or cutting the pension in half for a payment of $10,875.

Obviously the first option is better, but it still means that retiring early would cut the annual pension by $4,500. Over 10 years, that’s a $45,000 loss in income, and that loss would continue each year of the employee’s life.

These numbers are our rough estimates and not official calculations, but we show them to you for illustrative purposes.

The company’s proposal on health care for next year would involve another switch of plans, this time to one run by Blue Shield of Northeastern New York.

The proposed plan for next year is a Blue Shield of Northeastern New York plan, which is a switch from the current Empire Blue Cross plan. It has the same $750 deductible for employees and the same 90/10 split of some medical expenses with one exception.

For office visits, once you pass the top of the total deductible ($2,000 for a single, $4,000 for a family) you’d pay a co-pay for office visits instead of the 90/10 split. (Preventative care visits, like well child and annual physicals, are completely covered now and under the new plan.) Medical treatments at that point would still require the 90/10 split.

That copay would be $20 for a doctor visit, $50 for an urgent care visit and $75 for an emergency room visit. Again, this is only if you’ve passed the top of the deductible and it is in lieu of, not on top of, the 90/10.

Whether the 10 percent or the flat payment is more expensive varies. Office visits average $60-70 for a general practitioner and $225 for a specialist. Emergency room visits can average $600 to $1,000. Urgent care visits average $250.

After the meeting, the Guild emailed the company to ask if those office payments would fall under the maximum under the 90/10 share or if people who reached the maximum would still be expected to pay for office, urgent care and emergency room visits. We are awaiting that answer.

Under the proposal, the weekly cost out of your check would rise $2.06 a week, or a little over $107 a year.

That would include our share of medical costs rising from 21 to 23 percent. When the company imposed conditions, it originally proposed to increase our share to 23 percent in 2011 and 25 percent in 2012. Last year, the company agreed to freeze our share at 21 percent for an added year.

To keep the same plan we have now would have increased the weekly copay $11.70 a week. The main reason cited is one employee amassed medical bills this year of more than $400,000, a catastrophic case Blue Cross was not willing to write off as an exception.

Last year, 40 people passed  the top of the deductible and had to pay 10 percent of some medical expenses. We’ve asked the company for details on how many hit the top maximum.

Another 43 people didn’t even reach the top of the $750 as of October 4.

We’ll continue to keep you posted on details as we get answers to our questions.

The Guild and Times Union began discussions of the buyout offer Thursday but did not yet reach any conclusion.

The company was open to waiving the deductible for those who take the buyout, and Publisher George Hearst said he’d be willing to allow people in departments other than editorial to apply. The company would still be able to choose which applications to accept, and Hearst said the focus would be on positions that would not be replaced.

(That could mean, in some cases, that a person gets moved into the vacated position and their job remains unfilled.) Hearst said jobs in advertising were unlikely to result in cost savings because those workers would be replaced.

The two sides discussed the idea of lifting the company’s proposed cap of 52 weeks and allowing those under 65 to be able to retire without an early retirement penalty. The Guild pointed out that 19 people in editorial would be affected by the cap.

The early retirement penalty is not as clear cut as it first appeared. Essentially, when someone retires before age 65, they have two options.

One is to get their full pension but with the calculation of years of service ending in 2006. For some who have more than 30 years’ experience, that would not make a difference. For others, it would.

The second option is to take early retirement but receive less for each year before 65. The percentages are outlined in this Guild Pension Plan document. See the chart on page 29.

The union is examining this information to see what it might propose to aid senior employees who might wish to take the buyout but worry about the consequences for their retirement income.

The union will also meet with the company at 2 p.m. Friday to hear about insurance rates for 2012. Keep watching the website for details, and don’t forget to complete your health-care survey. We need your input.

The Guild’s committee is meeting with the Times Union today over the proposal for buyouts in editorial.

The committee proposed several changes to the company’s offer of three weeks’ pay for each year of service, with a minimum of 15 weeks and a maximum of one year, and health insurance for the same period.

Rather than cap the buyout at one year, the union proposed no cap. Many employees have more than 17 years of experience and would be affected by the cap. Some have more than 26 years’ experience and would get more money if laid off than if they take a buyout. (The contract language, which remains in effect, says laid-off workers get two weeks’ pay for each year of service with a 62-week cap.)

The union also proposed eliminating the early retirement penalty. Workers who retire before age 65 lose 5 percent off their pension for every year. If you retire at 55, your pension is cut in half. Retire at 60, you lose 25 percent. That is a serious disincentive for a worker who might otherwise consider a buyout.

The Guild proposal also says that people taking the buyout would not have to pay the health care deductible in 2012. If someone declines health insurance, they could receive half of the annual premium.

The proposal also includes including differentials an employee would normally receive in calculating wages. The Guild will ask the company to consider extending the offer to other departments and, if so, for commissions to be included for advertising employees.

The committee representing the union includes President Tim O’Brien ,Chief Steward Brian Nearing, Third Vice President Jeff Boyer and Page Designer Gillian Scott.