The Times Union has declined four employees’ requests for buyouts, the Guild learned Wednesday.

The Company has accepted 16 buyout requests to date and four to five more people may still be granted a buyout. Eleven people have signed the paperwork. Many of the workers will spend their last day at the Times Union Thursday. (Today as most of you are probably reading this.)

All four people whose requests were declined  work in the advertising department.

“If we gave these people a buyout, we’d have to replace them and that defeats the purpose of a buyout,” said Human Resources Director Carole Hess.

But one of the company’s out of town attorneys said that if the Company gained the contract language it wants on outsourcing, those positions could be eliminated at a later date.

Four of the five drivers are also contemplating a buyout as the Company has informed them that their positions are being shifted to independent contractors. Under  the current language on outsourcing, the drivers are the sole employees whose work can be contracted out. (The language also says they cannot be laid off, but the Company told them it would move them to other positions.)

Over the years, that exception to the outsourcing language has meant a decline in unionized drivers from 49 to five and now to zero, an indication of what happens when a company gets the unrestricted ability to outsource.

Capital Region residents are getting the message about the Times Union’s awful treatment of its employees in a whole new way.

An electronic billboard on I-90 contains three rotating messages from the Guild about our contract talks. The Guild also will be able to update and change the message as circumstances change. (This means if we settle the contract, we could put up a message asking people to subscribe again too.)

Two of the messages focus on the Company’s efforts to outsource any and all of our jobs. One says “Fair Contract Now” and encourages people to call Publisher George Hearst at 454-5555.

The billboard is part of the Guild’s ongoing efforts to inform and mobilize the community.

If you’re not driving that way today, you can view the billboard messages here and here

Rather than negotiate a fair contract with its employees, the Times Union is trying to position itself to claim the parties are at an impasse so  it can impose the elimination of seniority rules for layoffs and start outsourcing jobs.

In George Hearst’s latest e-mail to employees, note he said the Company is dedicated to reaching “an expedient resolution.” Not a good resolution or a fair resolution, but an expedient one.

In the letter to Guild President Tim O’Brien, you’ll notice a much more negative tone and a claim the parties appear to be at impasse.

The parties are not at or near an impasse. There are plenty of issues left on the table for us to discuss, from an increase in the pension fund contribution to commissions to upgrades. Hearst himself lists a half dozen issues.

In addition, numerous questions have arisen over the Company’s proposals on the two issues it has described as core ones for these negotiations. Their proposals have been altered as of the last round of sessions, and we need to carefully review the latest version of their proposals and how they would affect our members.

“We have never said we will not reach an agreement on any of the issues on the table,” O’Brien said. “But we have an obligation to represent our members to the fullest and to make sure we understand what every word in a proposal means. Once you reach an agreement, you are bound by those words and cannot later claim, ‘Well, we really didn’t know what that meant.’ When the language is about outsourcing and seniority for layoffs, it is very important that every word in an agreement be carefully considered.”

If the Company attempts to claim we are at impasse, we will immediately file a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board because it is demonstrably untrue. If the Company then says it will lay off people outside of seniority, we will immediately file a second board charge and seek an injunction.

Yes, we have been bargaining for nine months. The prior contract took two years to negotiate. Other unions in the plant have recently taken 15 months to negotiate. The amount of time spent bargaining is not an indication of impasse. And in fact, the Company did not really start bargaining in earnest until it issued the notice it would cancel the contract, a little more than a month ago.

And note what else George says in his memo: He wants to meet daily, but he has no intention of moving. In a sentence, that sums up the Company’s whole cynical game: Blast the union for not meeting daily, but refuse to bargain if we do.

You’ll hear George complain a lot about not meeting as often as he would like. What George doesn’t acknowledge is he was told that if he canceled the contract, it would temporarly cut our revenues and we would have to cut back on time spent on union leave. Knowing this, he canceled the contract anyway.

And, frankly, those of us on the Bargaining Committee want to spend some of our time doing our day jobs. The Company already targeted one of our committee members and tried to argue she had to hit the same advertising sales goals even if she was spending “every day” in bargaining as George wants. So that’s the Company’s position: Let’s meet every day, and let’s then say you’re a slouch at work.

Sure, the Company can meet every day. It has two out-of-town corporate lawyers on the payroll it can summon at short notice. The Guild’s expert advice comes from International representatives who work for many locals at a time, and we can’t simply order them to come to Albany the next day. At this stage, we will not bargain without an expert with us for every session, just as George would not bargain without his lawyer present.

“We know the Company wants to implement layoffs soon. It can do so under the current language,” O’Brien said. “Just because the Company wishes it had different language now does not mean it can force an impasse to get what it wants. The Times Union needs to continue to bargain in good faith until all the issues at the table are resolved and final language is agreed upon. While we certainly would like an agreement sooner than later, our first task is to get a fair agreement for our members that is carefully and wisely considered, not just expedient.”

At the just-concluded annual meeting of the Capital District Area Labor Federation, delegates passed a resolution supporting the Guild. The meeting drew more than 140 delegates and guests, and the resolution passed unanimously.

“The Capital District Area Labor Federation supports the Guild in its fight to keep experienced, loyal employees at work and to keep jobs from being outsourced; condemns the Times Union’s decision to cancel the union’s contract; and urges the newspaper’s management to abandon the destructive path it has taken,” the resolution reads.

It continues: “This body will stand in solidarity with the union and will support any and all boycotts, picketing or other efforts necessary to achieve a fair outcome.”

The Times Union’s effort to gut worker protections drew loud boos from the audience.  The Capital Region has the highest union density in New York State, meaning that the newspaper’s circulation and its advertisers’ profitability is based on the support of union households.

As many of you already know, employees are being informed as to whether they are being given the buyout. Some will be leaving the newspaper’s employment on April 30.

The breakdown of applicants we’ve received is: nine in advertising, eight in editorial, two in the business office and one person in circulation. The Guild prefers that people getting the buyout let their colleagues know, rather than us disclosing it immediately. Some people openly discuss it; others like to let it be known only as they are heading to the door. We respect their wishes.

We’ll provide an official breakdown of what positions folks held once the final news is delivered. We’ve yet to hear of anyone turned down.

We are losing many good people, but we appreciate the fact that they get to go voluntarily and with some extra pay and health insurance. All of them leave with our best wishes for success in whatever path they choose.