Tim O’Brien here.

It was an interesting day, to say the least.

It began with one of my editorial colleagues walking up to me, very upset.

“I just talked to one of my friends in advertising,” she said. “Apparently they had some meeting today with George, and there were some people complaining to him about the Guild who haven’t paid their dues or come to any of the union meetings.”

In short order, I heard from a few other advertising colleagues who were also at the meeting. They wanted to speak up in defense of the Guild, they said, but they found the forum very intimidating.

I invited some of those who expressed their concerns, as well as other leaders in advertising, to speak to me directly. Some were glad to do so. Others beefed about ‘moles’ disclosing what they said.

The central complaint was over the voting process. As in every past contract negotiation, we’ve scheduled the meeting at 1 p.m. on a Sunday afternoon because that’s when the fewest number of people work. We meet off the premises so members can feel comfortable talking. And we talk with each other before the secret ballots are cast so that people get a full airing of others’ concerns.

Some people have inquired about a second voting day. I’ve made some inquiries with the International union about that. There are rules, of course, about securing the ballot box that must be followed. I have not closed the door on it, but I need some legal answers before a final decision can be made.

One of my editorial colleagues heard me discussing that and walked over to say, as adamantly as some of the folks upstairs want a second voting date, that it should not be allowed. “These people need to come to the meeting and hear what others have to say,” this member said: No drive-by voting.

It’s not easy being me.

I also got an e-mail from one person demanding that I provide proof the failure to pay dues meant he could not vote. I was legally required to do this, he said, and he expected me to produce it immediately!

Um, dude, I replied (OK, I left out the dude part) I’m working right now so I can’t get it ‘immediately’ but yes I will get it to you.

At lunch time, I ate with some colleagues from a different end of advertising. One of them made a witty comment I have to share.

“The rule should be that if someone votes yes on this contract, then their jobs should be among the ones that could be outsourced,” he said. “If you vote no, then the company should not be able to outsource your job.”

I had to laugh. The inverse is true, of course. The more you think your job would be safe, the less likely you are to oppose this agreement. The more you think your job would be eliminated, the less likely you are to vote for this agreement.

I am told one of the things the publisher said upstairs was that he did not intend to lay off the district managers and outsource their jobs. “That’s great,” one of my colleagues said with a grin. “Now will he put that in writing?”

Of course, the publisher refused to put in writing a bar against outsourcing any jobs. And the drivers too were told that the Company had ‘no plans’ to eliminate all their jobs. And now they have.

At the end of the day, I heard from one of my advertising colleagues I very much respect even though we occasionally have different views. After discussing her views on the voting issue, she asked if the Guild might be able to offer an alternative health care plan. From what she was hearing from her direct colleagues, she said, that was the biggest issue.

She was very sincere, but I was stunned. Everyone I’ve heard from to date has identified outsourcing as the biggest issue in these negotiations. If the company’s proposal is defeated, that will undoubtedly be why.

But then I thought her remark was very interesting. Last year, as you know, the Company pushed very, very hard to get us to switch to this health care plan. They were willing to push it through even if the members had voted it down. And, in the end, it turned out not to be the good deal the Company said it was.

Wow, I thought. That sounds familiar. And if people vote for this agreement now, I thought, next year they will be expressing similar regrets about buying into something the Company pushed and realizing too late it wasn’t all it was cracked up to be.

Two positions on the Executive Board will be up for election at the June 14 membership meeting. The meeting will be at 1 p.m. at the Albany Labor Temple, 890 Third St. in Albany.

The treasurer’s position and a vice presidential slot will be available. Those elected will serve until January 1, 2011.

The treasurer oversees the union’s books and provides a monthly report at the Executive Board meeting. Both the treasurer and the vice president are members of the seven-member board that sets policy and makes decisions on issues facing the union.

There are two ways to be nominated: You may circulate a petition and gather signatures from 5 percent of the membership (12 people at the moment.) Or you may be nominated from the floor at the meeting and that nomination would have to be seconded.

From time to time, a manager will refer to the union leaders as “the usual suspects,” but in fact we’ve had frequent turnover over the years and never had trouble filling a slot on the board. There is a reason our union has lasted 75 years: thanks to a membership that is willing to support the union in good times and bad.

Please consider serving your colleagues on the Executive Board. It may not always be fun, but it is always rewarding.

In our summary of the Company’s proposal, we erred in our description of the language on OT.

Overtime would be paid after 40 hours a week, rather than the current 37.5, but a supervisor could not order you to work 10 hours one day and then send you home early the next. The way the language is written, employees and supervisors would have to mutually agree for that to occur.

We apologize  for the error and will correct it in our summary.

There is quite a discussion going on at the excellent local blog, All Over Albany. You can read it here.

We must admit we were mildly amused by the format of Publisher George Hearst’s e-mail this week. In it, Hearst talked to himself, asking questions and then providing his own answers. (Sample exchange: How are you? Excellent. Hey, thanks for asking.)

In the same spirit, we offer a Q&A for the publisher. We hope he answers these questions next week.

1. Has any other union in the plant given up all seniority protections or agreed to allow any and all of its jobs to be outsourced? No, none.
2. Why hasn’t George Hearst mentioned that in any of his e-mails? Only he can answer that question for you.
3. I understand other newspapers where outsourcing language has been approved have included reasonable limits, specified what jobs would not be outsourced or offered enhanced severance for anyone laid off as a result. Is that true? Why, yes it is. But the Company has made no such proposals here.
4. Why hasn’t that been mentioned in any of the Company’s e-mails? Only George Hearst can answer that question for you.
5. I understand the Guild proposed that the Company could skip 10 percent of the people laid off outside of seniority. If the Company thought that percentage was too low, why didn’t it counter with a higher one rather than seek to lay off anyone no matter how long and loyally they have served? Only George Hearst can answer that question.
6. An older employee who is laid off will likely have a more difficult time finding a job, will likely have a greater need for health insurance and, as I understand it, will risk having their pension cut in half. Is that true? Yes.
7. Why would the Company want to hurt its loyal employees that way? Only George Hearst can answer that question for you.
8. Why has the Company refused to share any information on what jobs would be outsourced? If it did, you’d vote no.
9. Does the Company honestly think we’ll believe it canceled the contract, cut off dues and threatened impasse to obtain outsourcing language it has “no plans” to use? Only George Hearst can answer that question.
10. Is it true that the Company’s creation of a magazine division created new Guild jobs, as Hearst said in his recent e-mail? No, new Guild jobs were created. One employee was moved into the division part-time after the Guild filed a grievance saying both other employees could not reasonably be exempt when they weren’t supervising any union members. The magazines are entirely written by freelancers.
11. Why would he say something so obviously untrue? Only George Hearst can answer that question for you.
12. If we vote this proposal down, shouldn’t the Company respect its employees’ decision and come back to the table to offer reasonable language on outsourcing and seniority? It certainly should.
13. Would it be in the Company’s interest to declare an impasse and attempt to force this language on us if we vote it down? Absolutely not. It would be in everyone’s best interest to come to a reasonable settlement.
14. Does the Guild have the support of Capital Region labor unions? Yes, as George Hearst well knows because they came in for a meeting with him and have called him by the score. He also has heard from many public officials who have urged him to be reasonable, and he has ignored all of them.
15. Why doesn’t the publisher acknowledge the outpouring of public support the Guild has received? Only George Hearst can answer that question for you.
16. The publisher claimed in his e-mail he had no idea what a member in good standing of a labor union is. Does he really not know? Of course he knows. He’s just not being honest with you.