Tag: media business

Interesting difference in emphasis in the New York Times’ and the Boston Globe’s coverage of today’s vote by the Boston Newspaper Guild.

The Times story, by Richard Pérez-Peña, quotes three Globe employees, all reporters, all of whom say they’re voting “no” — Scott Allen, Brian Mooney and Beth Daley. The story also notes that Guild president Dan Totten’s less-than-enthusiastic public comments have been “widely interpreted as urging rejection.”

The Globe story, by Rob Gavin, works into the lede the news that the paper’s delivery-truck drivers approved $2.5 million in concessions on Sunday. Gavin, like Pérez-Peña, also quotes three reporters, but with a different emphasis — Mooney (no), Erin Ailworth (yes) and Scott Helman (maybe).

The picture you come away from in reading the Times is that the deal — which would cut pay by about 10 percent and eliminate 190 lifetime job guarantees — is all but certain to be rejected. The Globe, by contrast, makes you think things are truly up in the air.

The Guild concessions, if approved, would add up to about $10 million, half the $20 million that the New York Times Co. is demanding. If the Guild votes “no,” management has said it would impose a 23 percent pay cut, which the Guild, in turn, says it would appeal to the National Labor Relations Board.

Management has not ruled out shutting down the paper, although that threat seems to have diminished since it was first leveled more than a month ago.

We’ll know tonight.

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