John Piekarski, who you all remember as a page designer in sports, is keeping up his Internet skills with his new blog, SoSara.com. You can check it out here.

Drop him a line and let him know how you like it. I’m sure he’d appreciate it.

The Guild reached an agreement Wednesday that saves the internal printer’s job.

The union also agreed to allow the outsourcing of two maintenance jobs that are now vacant, but the Company agreed that it will not outsource any other jobs in that department.

“This is a great victory for the Guild and shows why it is still important to have the union to fight for us,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said. “Mark DeCenzo does amazingly good work, and he provided us with the information we needed to make the case to keep him here. We are so glad we were able to take this burden off Mark and Tina’s shoulders.”

You can read a copy of the agreement here.

From Tim O’Brien:

I was walking in the grocery store the other day when a former colleague who took the buyout in the spring called out to me. “I’m glad to see you,” he said. “I want to write you a check.”

No one has ever said that to me before. The colleague explained that he had forgotten in the final month of work to pay his dues. I demurred, saying not to worry about it. “No, no,” he replied. “I’ve always felt guilty about it. I’ve intended to write it a dozen times. So I am glad to see you. I have my checkbook with me. I appreciate all the Guild did for me. I am writing you the check.”

And so he did. (Not made out to me, of course, but to the Guild.)

It’s moments like these that make my day and make me realize how important the Guild still is to our members. People stop and thank me, for example, for working hard to prove that our internal printer Mark DeCenzo deserves to stay at the Times Union.

I know it is frustrating right now, and sometimes it seems like the Company can just do whatever it wants and ignore the Guild. As you’ll hear more about soon, they can’t, though it takes time and patience to correct that misjudgment.

But there are lots of things the Guild still does and still protects you from. The Company cannot lay people off and refuse to pay severance, for example. It could if we didn’t have a union. It couldn’t split your days off  without your consent. It cannot cut your pay. All those things could happen without a union.

Even in trying times, the Guild is still there for its members. And I am so grateful for those moments when people express their thanks — even if it’s a surprising encounter at the supermarket.

A day after telling the Guild Thursday that the Times Union would consider and respond to the union’s proposal on how layoffs should be handled, the Company instead illegally declared an impasse in those talks and declared the 13 people walked out the door officially laid off.

The news was not a surprise, but it was a blatant violation of the law, part of a pattern of illegal behavior we’ve witnessed in recent months. First, the Times Union’s declaration of an impasse itself was illegal, as the Company sought to impose language on layoffs and outsourcing that it cannot legally implement. Next, as negotiations on the criteria for layoffs had barely begun, the Company walked the employees out the door.

Since then, the Times Union has refused to put into writing its complete criteria for how layoffs would be handled. It illegally decided who to lay off based on criteria it had developed and executed before ever sitting down to bargain. It has refused to make any changes to any of the parts of the criteria it showed us, even when admitting that people were judged based on standards that were never written down, shared with the employees or negotiated with the union. (They only move they made, knowing it would have no impact, was to drop a review of one employee by a manager who hadn’t overseen her work in two years. That review, of course, never should have been done by that manager in the first place.)

The Times Union refused to consider employee’s personnel history and failed to explain contradictions between the layoff evaluations and past performance reviews. And Publisher George Hearst, who said he would review the proposed layoffs to prevent favoritism, admitted he never looked at personnel records either.

“From the beginning, the Guild was presented not with a proposal to be considered but with a fait accompli,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said. “The Company’s approach was to simply show up at the table, refuse to move and at the end of the 45 days to declare the talks were over and its will could now be imposed.”

Fortunately, there are laws against such behavior. The Times Union’s actions are under investigation by the National Labor Relations Board.

“It is unfortunate that the Times Union shows such complete disregard for the law,” O’Brien said. “In the end, though it will take time and patience, we expect the newspaper bosses to be held accountable.”

The Guild made a new proposal Thursday that would allow the Company to lay off employees outside of seniority if they had consistent, documented performance problems.

The proposal was only applicable to this round of layoffs.

The Guild had previously proposed allowing the Company to skip employees of exceptional ability. The new proposal would still allow that, but it would also let the Company select a senior employee  for layoff if they had been notified of the performance problems, given time to meet the goals set forth for them and failed to do so. If the employee needed training, or had had insufficient training, the employee would be trained and not laid off.

“This is a significant step that would allow the Company to both keep employees who are doing exceptional work and lay off more senior workers who are less than stellar performers,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said.

You can read the proposal here.

The parties also spent time Thursday in an off-the-record discussion and will meet again next Thursday.