Tag: Boston Globe

On the eve of Monday’s vote by members of the Boston Newspaper Guild, the Guild has posted a press release on its “Save the Boston Globe” campaign.

In keeping with Guild president Dan Totten’s past comments, the union is not explicitly urging its members to vote one way or the other on the pact, which calls for a pay cut of roughly 10 percent and an end to lifetime job guarantees for about 190 Globe employees.

Twenty-four hours from now, we’ll know a lot more than we do today.

It happened a century ago, writes the Boston Globe’s Michael Paulson.

Coincidentally, recent negotiations between the Boston Newspaper Guild and the New York Times Co. took place at the Sacred Heart Labor Guild in Weymouth. For what it’s worth.

Brian Mooney has e-mailed a response to the item I posted earlier today. I am publishing it here in full with his permission.

You’ve completely misrepresented the position of those of us who are arguing for a “no” vote and done it in a demeaning, insulting manner. We understand a lot better than you do the state of the newspaper industry in general and the Globe in particular. We have said repeatedly and publicly that we are willing to absorb our share of the cuts to help the paper through this period which we hope is a transition to a multi-media platform.

And I personally resent your ill-informed opinion about what the membership should do. You don’t know what you’re talking about and until you do, you should keep your mouth shut.

This is not some mindless, nihilistic, send-’em-a-message exercise. It’s a painful decision for everyone in the Guild. The best-case scenario is bad, and we all know it. The Times Co. will impose Wal-Mart-like employment conditions here if it can get away with it.

Because you do not seem to have a grasp of any actual facts, I’ll try to explain some to you.

The major issues are fairness and bad-faith bargaining.

Both of the company’s ultimatums amount to $10 million a year — the equivalent of a permanent 23-percent reduction in our wages, albeit by dramatically different methods. At the same time, managers and other exempts are taking a temporary 5-percent cut. While the company wants to reduce from 3 percent to zero the maximum match for union members’ 401k contributions, managers this year received an increase in their 401k match from 3 percent to 5 percent. While the company wants to dramatically reduce its contribution to our health insurance fund, which would precipitate a $1,000 per year increase in premiums paid by Guild members, the company has provided managers enhanced health and dental coverage and is paying most of the increase in cost. While the company wants to freeze Guild members’ pensions, it is reducing managers pensions by only one-third.

In each of those cases, exempt employees already enjoy significantly better compensation and benefits than Guild members.

The publisher, Steve Ainsley, has claimed that managers and other exempts have absorbed the equivalent of a 16-percent loss in salary and bonuses since last year but has not produced any backup information to support it. That’s probably because the numbers can’t possibly add up to that. If they’re taking a 5-percent pay cut, does that mean they received, on average, an 11-percent bonus for 2008, a year in which the Globe lost $50 million? I doubt it.

But even if the figure is accurate — and no one believes it — the exempts are taking a 16-percent hit and the Guild members are taking a 23-percent whack.

Never mind that the Times itself continues to inch closer to the precipice of bankruptcy with a series of colossal business blunders and an unwillingness to take more serious steps to stop the bleeding in its own business, which includes the International Herald Tribune. The IHT has always lost money and, in the era of the Internet, is an anachronism and in this economy is probably losing record amounts. The Times Co. says it does not disclose the financial performance of its component parts, but we know that’s not true. They made sure the amount of Globe losses appeared on the paper’s front page and every other media outlet as part of their negotiating strategy.

Yet the Times Co. said it was prepared to shut down the Boston Globe, which has long served a distinctive community, before it would shut down the IHT, the precious “global edition of the New York Times,” an expensive hood ornament indeed.

During the course of negotiations, the company has repeatedly engaged in punitive, bad-faith bargaining and basically committed an act of corporate terrorism with its threat to close the paper. They have traumatized their own employees, their employees’ families, and the wider community that cares about and depends on this newspaper.

I think we’ve put to bed the notion that they can afford to make good on that threat, because the Times Company’s own finances are so fragile, the cost of closing us would wreck the parent company. But the damage is done.

Finally, the lifetime job security issue is a red herring promoted by the Times Co. Your reliance on it to support your threadbare position betrays your ignorance. Many of us, maybe most, with so-called lifetime job security would get rid of it, and if the company wants to get rid of it, they can go to binding arbitration under the terms of our contract. Their problem is that they have publicly stated the monetary value to the company of eliminating the language is zero. Zero.

Brian C. Mooney
Staff reporter
The Boston Globe

Both from the same person!

On the one hand, there is an air of unreality to the stance taken by Boston Newspaper Guild president Dan Totten and those urging a “no” vote next Monday, the most public of whom has been Boston Globe political reporter Brian Mooney. It’s as though they never visit Romenekso and don’t understand that the newspaper business as we know it has come to an end.

Talk to knowledgeable observers and you won’t find anyone who thinks the New York Times Co. is lying about the Globe’s being on track to lose $85 million this year. I think there’s a way forward for papers like the Globe — but only as leaner, smaller enterprises. You don’t get there by continuing those archaic lifetime job guarantees for 190 Guild members.

On the other hand, Times Co. management has behaved in a contemptible and erratic fashion. As Totten pointed out in his letter to Guild members (pdf) yesterday, companies such as GateHouse Media and the Phoenix media outlets have cut disproportionately at the top. The Times Co., by contrast, is targeting the rank and file.

Moreover, management’s ever-shifting threats would give anyone the impression that it’s bluffing. At first, the company threatened to close the paper in 30 days if it didn’t get $20 million in cuts. After 30 days had passed, executives claimed they’d really meant to say they would start a 60-day shutdown process if they didn’t get what they wanted. Then they called that off.

Finally, they said that if the Guild votes down the current agreement — to cut pay by about 10 percent and eliminate the lifetime jobs — then they would unilaterally impose a 23 percent pay cut. Uh, what happened to the threat to close the paper?

I have absolutely no idea what will happen on Monday. My head tells me that members should overlook management’s bad behavior and approve the agreement. My gut tells me that they’re going to vote it down.

After that? Who knows? Totten has said he believes management will reopen negotiations at that point. Right now, it’s hard to know what to think.

Romenesko has posted the latest letter from the Boston Newspaper Guild to its members, ahead of Monday’s vote on pay reductions at the Boston Globe.

And Globe publisher Steve Ainsley has sent the following message to Globe employees:

Dear Colleagues:

Many questions have been raised about the proposed Guild contract. In a Q&A last week we answered questions about the contract’s components. Today we are issuing another Q&A that addresses some broader issues….

Allow me to speak to just a few of those issues.

I understand there is a petition being circulated by Guild members asking me, on behalf of the Globe, to consider a new contract proposal. While I appreciate the concern about proposed deep reductions to compensation and the desire to revisit specific contract components before the June 8th vote, the Globe may lawfully negotiate only with the Guild as the exclusive representative of the collective bargaining unit.

Further, even if the Guild were to present a new proposal, we do not have time to reopen negotiations and begin the bargaining process again. Any new agreement would be subject to a bargaining process and a vote on any new proposal would come only after another 30-day wait following its presentation to Guild membership. Our financial situation is too urgent and further delays to resolution are not an option.

I also feel I need re-emphasize points that we have consistently made clear to Guild leadership.

It is essential and non-negotiable that we achieve $10 million in cost savings from the Guild. We approached all our unions with similarly firm goals and we handled all of our negotiations equitably. Five of these contracts have been ratified. Most important, the implementation of the new agreements with other unions is conditioned on achieving the $10 million in savings from the Guild.

As we negotiated with the Guild’s bargaining team, the objective always has been to find a way to secure $10 million in savings while causing the least possible hardship on employees. Both sides realized that there were no simple or painless choices.

These decisions affect our personal lives as well as our careers. The process of making deep cuts in an organization inevitably invites division and disruption. But let’s remember how remarkable a job we’ve done pulling together and making it through these many months of economic trouble, excelling in delivering our readers high-quality journalism.

We share a passion for The Boston Globe and Boston.com. We will see better days.

— Steve

How tense is the Boston Globe newsroom these days? Mighty tense indeed, judging from the response by political reporter Brian Mooney (left) to an e-mail sent Tuesday by business reporter Rob Gavin to members of the Boston Newspaper Guild. The e-mails were obtained from an unimpeachable source.

Next Monday, members of the Newspaper Guild vote on whether to accept a contract revision, negotiated by New York Times Co. management and the Guild, and presented to the membership without a Guild recommendation. The deal calls for a pay cut of about 10 percent as well as an end to lifetime job guarantees for about 190 employees.

On Tuesday at 4:33 p.m., Gavin sent the following e-mail to Guild members:

Hello everyone,

Rob Gavin in the newsroom here. For a story in advance of the Guild contract vote, i’m trying to do a poll of sentiment among Guild members.

If you’re a guild member, and would be willing to participate, please respond to this email with:

yes (meaning you plan to vote for contract)…
no (meaning you plan to vote against the contract..
or undecided.

All responses will be kept confidential by me, not shared with anyone else, and deleted as soon as I tally them. I’ll only publish the results if I get a large enough sample. Of course, as pollsters say, this would only be a snapshot of voter sentiment at this particular time, and not necessarily how people might actually vote on Monday. I know this is sensitive, but I figured it’s worth a try. If you think you can help me, please respond (be careful to avoid the respond to all) by end to the day tomorrow. If not, no problem. I understand.

thanks again,

rob gavin

Less than a half-hour later, Mooney sent the following response, also to everyone in the Guild:

You’ve got to be kidding, Rob.

Your time would be better spent writing a real story about the difference in the cuts the Times Co. wants the Guild members to take compared to the mild cuts and, in some cases, actual increases in fringe benefits for the managers and other exempts. I’m voting ‘no’ because that’s unfair.

Here’s another story idea. Why don’t you examine whether the Times Co. can really make good on its threat to shut down the Globe without bankrupting the New York Times Co.? According to their SEC filing, it cost $31 million to close Billerica, with a fraction of the employees we have here at Morrissey Boulevard. To pay all the severance obligations of the 1,400 union employees (plus the managers) would bankrupt the parent company, it’s pretty clear. The Times has something like $34 million in unencumbered cash and cannot borrow money (without going to Mexico and paying usurious 14-percent interest rates).

If they shut the Globe, it would be a murder-suicide.

Vote “No” next Monday.

Brian C. Mooney

It’s hard to know exactly what will happen if the Guild votes the proposal down. Though management has threatened to impose a 23 percent pay cut unilaterally, it no longer appears to be threatening to shut the Globe down.

In a recent interview with Boston magazine, Guild president Dan Totten sounds like he’s itching for his members to vote “no” and re-open negotiations, telling reporter Jason Schwartz: “What’s been put before us is completely unacceptable. And I think people are ready, willing, and able to do something on that matter.”

In less than a week, we’ll have a better idea of where the Globe goes from here.

File photo of Mooney (cc) 2007 by Dan Kennedy. Some rights reserved. See Creative Commons terms in left-hand rail.

There’s a full-page ad from General Motors on the back of the “A” section today.

Jason Schwartz has a good profile of Boston Newspaper Guild president Dan Totten, posted at Boston Magazine’s Web site. Totten and his members are the last remaining obstacle to the New York Times Co.’s plan to extract $20 million in union concessions at the Boston Globe. Key excerpt:

Should his members vote to send him back into the ring with management, he could very well emerge as the hard-spined hero who had the gall to stare down the Gray Lady. Of course, if he fails, he’ll be branded the foolhardy union hack who hastened the end of the Boston Globe as we know it.

Schwartz’s story is loaded with nice details, nearly all of them from anonymous sources. Funny, but just the other day I was having an e-mail debate with a reader objecting to what Slate’s Jack Shafer likes to call “anonymice.”

The Totten profile is evidence that though anonymity may be less than ideal, it’s absolutely necessary when reporting on Boston’s paranoid media scene. I know whereof I write.