The Times Union’s proposed cutting of six more jobs would harm the newspaper’s quality, members said at a meeting Thursday to discuss the proposal.

The company is proposing to eliminate four jobs in advertising art/marketing and two in online editorial. Company officials made a proposal earlier this week to offer buyouts targeted only to those positions.

The Guild called a meeting at the Colonie Public Library with affected workers to discuss the proposal and how best to respond.

With the Times Union hiring additional advertising sales staff – a step members welcomed – employees questioned how more ads could be handled with fewer workers to create them. During its law-breaking layoff of workers last year, the Times Union already cut two advertising artist positions. Other jobs have been lost due to promotions.

After a recent revamping of the newspaper’s Web site, readers and advertisers have begun to complain about the heavily formatted site that reduces the visibility of the breaking news that is the heart of what the Times Union does.

Workers in the online area also said they do far more than post items to the Web. They work closely with writers and editors to highlight local reporting and to think of creative ways to draw eyes to stories, photos and video.

While the Times Union claimed the jobs were being cut, not outsourced, employees expressed skepticism of that claim since workers at the Hearst Connecticut papers can make changes to the TU’s Web site.

Employees Marianne Mahr, John Michaels and Tim Neff agreed to join President Tim O’Brien at the bargaining table to discuss the company’s proposal. First, these employees will gather information from their colleagues. The Guild also has reached out to our International for help in these talks.

Times Union management proposed Tuesday to cut six more jobs at the newspaper, four of them in the advertising/marketing area and two on the Web desk in editorial.

The Guild listened to the company’s proposal and its suggested buyout terms but did not present a response. Union leaders said they needed time to get input from employees in the affected areas.

The union will hold a meeting for members from noon to 2 p.m. Thursday at the Colonie Public Library. Everyone in the affected titles is urged to attend.

The company did not provide a proposal in writing but said it would mirror last year’s buyout offer with two weeks for every year of service, with a minimum of 12 weeks and a maximum of 52. Health care would be for the same number of weeks, with a minimum of insurance to the end of the year. The Times Union would not challenge unemployment claims.

The union did not make a counteroffer. Guild President Tim O’Brien and First Vice President Lindsay LaFountain attended the meeting, but the company declined to say in advance what the topic was. Typically, the union brings members in affected areas to any discussion.

“We would not agree to anything without getting input from our members,” O’Brien said. “We also have concerns that the workload in both cannot be done with so few people. We need to get input and data from our members before we can respond intelligently.”

Publisher George Hearst said the online job cuts resulted from the recent reformatting of the Web site. The site is much more formatted, he said, requiring fewer people to put it together.

The revised Web site, which many see as far weaker than the former site, is connected to the Hearst operations in Connecticut. Changes on the TU’s pages can be made by workers there. While the Company claims the work is being eliminated, not outsourced, the Guild needs to discuss that issue further with the affected members.

Outsourcing of work under the imposed conditions requires negotiations. (There would be no negotiations over outsourcing if members had approved the Times Union’s proposed contract last year, and there is no guarantee of severance, never mind an enhanced buyout, in a non-union workplace.)

If the company did not get the number of people to take the buyout it wants, it would be required to negotiate any layoffs outside of seniority. Again, if members had approved the company’s proposed contract last year, members would have no right to bargain over layoffs.

The Times Union broke the law when it removed workers from their jobs when the newspaper was supposed to be negotiating layoff criteria – and broke the law again when declaring impasse in those negotiations, a judge has now ruled.

Administrative Law Judge Mark Carissimi ordered the newspaper to return the 11 affected employees to their jobs or similar jobs and to make them financially whole for lost wages and benefits. The Times Union also was ordered to return to the bargaining table with the Newspaper Guild of Albany/CWA.

“The unlawful unilateral change of placing the employees it was proposing for layoff on paid leave establishes a lack of good faith,” the judge wrote.

You can read the full text here.

The decision is important not only for those laid off last year. It also means no other employees can be subject to similar treatment in the future, and it sets a precedent  that bars other private-sector employers from similarly walking people out during layoff negotiations.

The judge rejected the Times Union’s argument the Guild was unwilling to negotiate over layoff criteria. In fact, the judge says, the union made a proposal the day before impasse was declared the company described as “movement” on the union’s part.

“Even though the (Times Union) had presented the union with a fait accompli regarding the issue of layoffs, the union was exhibiting signs of addressing the (newspaper’s) stated need for flexibility in conducting layoffs,” the judge wrote. “The record convinces me that, rather than exploring whether the union’s change in position could serve as a basis to move the parties closer to an agreement on this issue, the (Times Union) declared impasse.”

After only two days of bargaining over layoff criteria, the Times Union removed employees from their jobs last July. The newspaper’s own story called the action layoffs.

The judge rejected the company’s argument the leaves were equivalent to a “paid vacation.” The workers were made to hand over their entry badges, had their e-mail accounts taken away, and their names were stripped from mailboxes.

“In my view, being told your position will be eliminated unless later bargaining reverses the decision, and having all normal working contact with your employer cease, is not the equivalent of a paid vacation,” the judge wrote.

In fact, he said, the action was meant to send a loud and clear message to all employees and to put the union at a disadvantage in further negotiations.

“The (Times Union) spent four months developing and applying criteria for determining how it would conduct out of seniority layoffs,” the judge wrote. “After only two bargaining meetings, the respondent applied the criteria to unilaterally select the employees it wished to lay off and removed them from active employment. This action, in my view, seriously disadvantaged the union’s position in effectively bargaining regarding the criteria to be employed for out of seniority layoffs.”

He based his decision in part on the testimony of the company’s lawyer, who said the employees were walked out to “calm the atmosphere.” That testimony, the judge ruled, “confirms that the respondent intended this action to serve as a message to the employees who were not proposed for layoffs that their jobs were safe.”

The ruling drew swift reaction from area labor leaders.

“We knew they were breaking the law,” said Jeff Stark, executive vice president of the Capital District Area Labor Federation. “Now we just hope the Times Union will accept the decision, restore the workers and put this sad chapter behind them by settling the contract.  It’s caused great hard feelings, and it’s tarnished a once great image.”

The decision comes after a trial last May, litigated by Al Norek of the Albany office of the National Labor Relations Board, and by Quinn Philbin, counsel with the firm of Barr & Camens, the Guild’s lawyer.

Like a conviction in a criminal case, the Times Union is now legally guilty as charged. The company can appeal to the full National Labor Relations Board in Washington, D.C., but the meter is running now on back pay owed to the laid-off workers.

The Guild is grateful to Al Norek, Quinn Philbin and the laid-off workers who testified.

“Those employees deserve better after all they have been through than a long, drawn-out appeal meant only to drag the case out,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said. “Justice can be delayed. It will not be denied.”

Under the terms imposed by the Company, your days off can be changed without your consent once a year. But what does “without your consent” mean?

This issue arose after a group of employees in the circulation department had their days off switched. Guild President Tim O’Brien and Chief Steward Brian Nearing met with company leaders Monday to discuss the changes.

Company leaders praised the employees’ performance, saying they had increased revenue in the first week handling outbound calls. The TU also is looking to bring work now done by an outside contractor, confirming new starts, in house.

That was welcome news, but we did have one question: “Did you ask the employees if they consented to the changes in their days off?”

The initial answer was no, but if no one said they disagreed with the switch, the company assumed the employees consented. That means if the TU wants to change the workers’ schedules again in a few months, it would argue that employees could not invoke their right to limit changes without consent to once a year.

The Guild said implied consent should not be enough. Employees should be specifically asked if they agree to the change. Otherwise, both parties could find themselves in a later dispute over whether silence meant consent.

To its credit, the Company then said it would provide a form to employees asking if they consent to the change. If an employee says yes, their days off could be changed again in less than a year without their agreement. If an employee says no, the company cannot change days off again within a year unless the employee agrees.

Employees should not worry they will be penalized for saying they do not consent to the change. You have a legally protected right to invoke a benefit.

While this issue first came up in circulation, it is relevant to every Guild-covered worker, and we thought you should know about it.

One of the best parts of attending the Guild and CWA annual meetings is to talk to other union leaders about what is happening in their locals.

And there is no one I look forward to chatting with more than Michael Cabanatuan, leader of the Northern California Media Workers Guild. It’s not just that Michael is a very nice guy. He also leads the Guild local at the Hearst-owned San Francisco Chronicle, and what happens there often heads our way next. (Michael also lives in Albany, California, an irony we both enjoy.)

Here’s his assessment of the Hearst Corp. and how it is treating workers there. It’s not pretty, but Chronicle workers are lucky to have a strong president and leadership. We support Michael and his colleagues as they have supported us.