The Times Union is seeking to punish employees for voting ‘no’ on its proposal to outsource any and all jobs and to lay off employees regardless of their length of service.

Shunning offers of compromise, the company said Tuesday it is declaring an impasse and will impose terms effective June 24. While Guild President Tim O’Brien had come to Publisher George Hearst in person immediately after the vote Monday to offer an olive branch, Hearst informed the union leader of his decision by e-mail sent through his secretary Tuesday evening.

“The publisher, sadly, did not have the courage to deliver the message face to face,” O’Brien said.

The publisher’s letter said he would drop the $500 bonus he had proposed to pay workers in lieu of raises this year and next. That decision breaks a promise he made to editorial workers in one of his sessions prior to the vote.

The Company will seek to force employees to accept layoffs without regard to seniority and the wholesale outsourcing of their work, conditions they soundly rejected in their vote. While it won’t pay the bonuses, it will seek to increase your share of health care costs by 5 percent effective Jan. 1, costing more than $300 a year under current rates. The Times Union also will try to impose language enabling bosses to change your days off once a year without your consent.

“The publisher told employees repeatedly he really wanted them to vote,” O’Brien said. “When they rejected his offer by a more than 3 to 1 margin, however, the Times Union rejected offers of compromise and decided it needed to punish the employees who make the Times Union profitable.”

The TU also seeks to punish the employees by making the end of dues collection and arbitration rights permanent.

“Every step of the way in these negotiations, the Guild has offered compromise,” O’Brien said. “And every time we have done so, the Company has responded by demanding more and more and more. They have failed to bargain in good faith. They have demanded the kinds of concessions that newspapers that have declared bankruptcy or been losing millions for years have received. The publisher has said this newspaper is profitable. He has refused to show us the books. There is no excuse for his behavior. The Times Union should be ashamed of itself.”

In one of his meetings prior to the vote, Hearst told editorial employees that canceling the $500 bonus was something he could do if he declared impasse but he assured workers he had no intention to do so. Clearly upset at the vote, he broke his promise.

The Guild will not take this action lightly. We will file a legal challenge to the Company’s claim of impasse.

“The only winners as a result of the publisher’s actions will be the lawyers,” O’Brien said. “But we will continue to fight for our members, and we know the public is solidly behind us and will continue to voice its opposition to the company’s reprehensible behavior.”

The members of the Newspaper Guild elected two new leaders to the Executive Board.

Dan Roesser, an employee in the marketing/specialty publications subdepartment, stepped up to the position of treasurer. Hired by the Times Union in 2006, Dan joined the board last year as a vice president. He agreed to fill the treasurer’s position vacated by Renee Iannone, who took a buyout. The Guild is extremely grateful to Renee for her years of service to the union and its members. She continued to help the union through a transition to a new treasurer during a particularly challenging time.

Replacing Roesser as second vice president is Sarah Diodato of the Web desk. Sarah joined the Times Union in 2004. She is the main contributor to the Savings Source blog, and she recently earned her master’s degree in human-computer interaction from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. For the past two years, she has been the Guild’s Webmaster. As anyone who has viewed the Web site knows, she’s done a terrific job, enabling us to post a blog, videos, an online contract survey and an online historical quiz.

In nominating Sarah at Sunday’s membership meeting, Guild member and past president Ken Crowe noted that both she and Dan represent a new generation of Guild leadership and reflect the union’s deep commitment to being part of the Internet-based future of the news business. Both candidates were elected unanimously by voice vote.

“We are grateful to both Dan and Sarah for stepping up to these roles in a challenging time,” Guild President Tim O’Brien said. “They both bring a fresh, young perspective to the board that we very much appreciate.”

By a more than three-to-one margin, employees of the Times Union voted  today to reject a contract offer that would have given the company the power to outsource any and all jobs and lay off employees regardless of how long they had worked at the newspaper.

Publisher George Hearst had insisted on the vote and strongly encouraged members to participate. The members rejected the proposal by a vote of 125 to 35.

“Had the membership approved the company’s proposal, we would have respected their decision and been bound by it,” said Guild President Tim O’Brien. “The publisher sought this vote, told members how important it was to him that they vote and he needs to respect their decision. Our members were quite clear on what they found unacceptable in the company’s offer and they have been telling us what changes would make it acceptable. We intend to seek new bargaining dates and to go forward with a renewed spirit of flexibility.”

The publisher should take a renewed look at the proposal, listen to the concerns of his employees and come back to the table ready to compromise.

“As a sign of our good faith, the Guild is suspending its advertising campaign so that we can go forward with a new spirit of collaboration,” O’Brien said. “We look forward to returning to the table, and we believe the parties can and should come together in a compromise that will reflect both the perilous nature of our times as well as the need to continue to produce a quality newspaper staffed by local employees.”

As our members prepare to vote on the Company’s proposal, union members gathered outside the Times Union Thursday for a show of solid support.

Some 75 union members rallied outside the newspaper holding signs, cheering and attracting supportive honks from passing motorists. They came from a wide assortment of unions including NYSUT, UUP, PEF, CSEA, the Steelworkers, the Amlgamated Transit Union, the Teamsters, and other units of CWA.

Highly regarded defense attorney Steve Coffey came to the rally after talking about the  Guild’s battle for a fair contract Thursday morning on Paul Vandenburgh’s radio show on Talk 1300. Coffey said he was disturbed that the Times Union would seek to lay off employees who had been at the paper 20, 30 or 40 years like Carol DeMare. He also said the newspaper should not be seeking a blank check to outsource work.

Also attending were Assemblyman Robert Reilly and County Legislators Douglas Bullock and Bryan M. Clenahan.

“When you work inside the concrete bunker that is the Times Union building, you often don’t realize what tremendous support we have in the Capital Region,” said Guild President Tim O’Brien. “The Times Union’s efforts to outsource our jobs and eliminate seniority have galvinized community attention. They recognize the damage that would have on the newspaper, its advertisers and our readers. We are appreciative to all who came out today and to our members who joined us.”

In one of his forums with employees Wednesday, Publisher George Hearst inaccurately claimed an impasse is forever.

Guild President Tim O’Brien was in the meeting. He suspected the answer was wrong, but didn’t immediately respond because he needed to research the right response. He consulted with representatives of the Guild International, including its legal counsel, after leaving the meeting and had a swift answer.

“What George Hearst said is untrue,” O’Brien said. “An impasse lasts for what would have been the term of the contract. In this case, the Company is proposing a three-year agreement, one year of which is almost over. We would be back in negotiations by 2011 at a minimum.”

In addition, the Company could make no further contractual changes without an agreement with the Guild. So, for example, if the Company wanted to reorganize positions in a department (as it did last year in editorial) the Company would have to bargain over it. The Guild would naturally insist that any agreement be part of an overall contract settlement.

The parties also would continue to negotiate and, at any time, could reach a mutual agreement.

“We do not believe that the parties are at impasse just because the Company decided to force a vote,” O’Brien said. “But George was wrong to tell members that an impasse is forever. It is not.”

During the session, Hearst was asked about a recent tentative agreement at the Washington Post, where the company agreed to limits on layoffs outside seniority and a bar against laying off people in order to outsource work. Hearst conceded the Guild in Albany had offered flexibility by setting percentages on the number of jobs that could be outsourced or the number of workers who could be laid off outside seniority. When he said the percentages offered by the Guild were unacceptable, one employee bravely asked what percentages would be acceptable.

“We’re not here negotiating,” Hearst responded crisply. “I appreciate the spirit of your question.”

Hearst did not offer much in the way of reasons why members should support his efforts to outsource any and all work or to lay off anyone regardless of how long their service, except to say that a yes vote would have ‘more curb appeal,’ ‘better kharma’ and ‘the optics are better.’ We’re not sure what any of that means.

But Hearst did acknowledge the Guild would have greater say in negotiating layoffs or outsourcing if the proposal was defeated. And he urged members to pay their dues so that they are eligible to vote. On that point, we wholeheartedly agree.