[ifmanis5]

Big union vote today, per AP...

AP-US--Boston Globe Future, 1st Ld-Writethru,0426
Boston Globe union votes on pay, benefit cuts
Eds: New thruout with more details, voting open. Voting is set to run until 8 p.m. Eastern. Moving on general news and financial services.
By MELISSA TRUJILLO
Associated Press Writer
BOSTON (AP) -- Members of The Boston Globe's largest employees union faced the choice Monday of accepting deep cuts in wages and benefits designed to avoid the possible closure of a newspaper losing more than $1 million each week.
The Boston Newspaper Guild is voting on a new contract negotiated after the Globe's parent company, the New York Times Co., said it needed $20 million in annual savings from Globe unions -- half of that from the Guild -- to avoid shutting down the 137-year-old newspaper.
The Guild's leadership has not endorsed the contract, instead agreeing only to allow its members to vote on it.
"This is a hugely personal vote for every member," Guild President Daniel Totten said last week. "Whatever way the membership goes, we support that direction."
Under the contract, members of the Guild -- about 700 editorial, advertising and business employees -- would see an 8.3 percent wage cut, five-day unpaid furloughs and cuts in health care benefits, 401(k) contributions and pensions.
The contract also would eliminate lifetime job guarantees for 190 Guild workers. Most got the promises in exchange for other concessions in a contract ratified in 1994, shortly after the Times Co. bought the Globe for $1.1 billion.
(Copyright 2009 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
AP-NY-06-08-09 0953EDT

[Titoschew]

Globe union rejects concessions

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Globe union rejects concessions

Apparently it was 277 to 265, so a real nail biter.

I don't know who is right or wrong here. But I'd probably be pissed if I was a member of one of the other unions and we had swallowed our medicine, but my job was still hanging by a thread because the reporters didn't want to swallow theirs.

[Corsi Combover]

Apparently it was 277 to 265, so a real nail biter.

I don't know who is right or wrong here. But I'd probably be pissed if I was a member of one of the other unions and we had swallowed our medicine, but my job was still hanging by a thread because the reporters didn't want to swallow theirs.

Wow. I didn't think it would be this close, to be honest. I voted no, FWIW. Things just got very, very interesting. Now I just gotta hope and pray that they don't (or can't) impose the 23% wage cut.

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Wow. I didn't think it would be this close, to be honest. I voted no, FWIW. Things just got very, very interesting. Now I just gotta hope and pray that they don't (or can't) impose the 23% wage cut.

I didn't know you were in the guild Corsi. Was your mind pretty strongly made up to vote no or were you on the fence?

I dont know much about the situation, but my guess is that the closeness of the vote might work in favor of a negotiated resolution in the next week or so. Management is likely to be thinking that if they just sweeten the deal a tiny bit, they can sway a few votes and get something done.

[HomeBrew1901]

Wow. I didn't think it would be this close, to be honest. I voted no, FWIW. Things just got very, very interesting. Now I just gotta hope and pray that they don't (or can't) impose the 23% wage cut.

I'm sure daddy will support you.

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

I'm sure daddy will support you.

Homebrew, do you have an email alert set up so that whenever Corsi makes a post about employment you get notified and can be there 20 minutes later to shit on him?

This post has been edited by Morgan's Magic Snowplow: 08 June 2009 - 10:02 PM

[HomeBrew1901]

16 Minutes and I wish it were a news alert, it's more like a spidey sense.

Edit: and it hurts.

This post has been edited by HomeBrew1901: 08 June 2009 - 10:07 PM

[Rough Carrigan]

Wow. I didn't think it would be this close, to be honest. I voted no, FWIW. Things just got very, very interesting. Now I just gotta hope and pray that they don't (or can't) impose the 23% wage cut.

How did something like 140 people not even vote? I understand ambivalence, but 140 out of around 700 people don't even vote on something that affects their livelihood like this?!

[Corsi Combover]

How did something like 140 people not even vote? I understand ambivalence, but 140 out of around 700 people don't even vote on something that affects their livelihood like this?!

Agreed. Surprised me as well.

I voted no b/c I felt the 23% cut was a bluff (this remains to be seen) and I couldn't conscionably vote with only my personal interests at heart. It was a tough decision, for sure.

[HomeBrew1901]

Agreed. Surprised me as well.

I voted no b/c I felt the 23% cut was a bluff (this remains to be seen) and I couldn't conscionably vote with only my personal interests at heart. It was a tough decision, for sure.

What about shutting down the Globe all together, was that a bluff as well? What about the interests of the other Union that took the 10M in concessions?

From the looks of it it was 170 people trying to keep their lifetime status with another 100 people that didn't fully get it or didn't think it was fair that they lose that status. The 140 people that didn't vote is just completely baffling to me.

[HomeBrew1901]

That was a legitimate question by the way, I'm curious as to what your thinking was, aside from "I'm hoping the NYT was bluffing on the 23% pay cut."

edit: FTR, I am not a fan of most Unions and this is a good example of why. The power of the few and mighty (170 lifetime contracts) screwing over the other Union and a large amount of other members from their own union because I can gaurantee you that not 1 of the 170 voted for this concession but they will all immediately switch thier vote if the NYT says "OK, you can keep your lifetime contracts."

This post has been edited by HomeBrew1901: 09 June 2009 - 01:22 PM

[CrackpotTheory]

and I couldn't conscionably vote with only my personal interests at heart. It was a tough decision, for sure.

John Galt hates you.

The possible outcome of you (and 6 or 7 others) not voting your personal interests is that a lot of people may get a 100% wage cut.

This post has been edited by CrackpotTheory: 09 June 2009 - 01:27 PM

[Corsi Combover]

John Galt hates you.

The possible outcome of you (and 6 or 7 others) not voting your personal interests is that a lot of people may get a 100% wage cut.

Oh please. You don't know the half of it. I could have voted yes and only received a 2% paycut (due to my low wage), but I know how strongly other people I worked with felt about voting no, and I chose to put my own self interests aside.

It sucks. It's not a good day. You can't accuse me of being selfish cause I didn't accept some ridiculous offer from management. A lot of people here basically feel that you either give us something we can work with, or just shut the fucking place down. There's no in between. A 23% wage cut would just be the beginning of the end. Or the middle of the end. The end.

[URI]

Well, now you have a 23% pay cut (pending an injunction), and either a few years of litigation in front of a NLRB or another likely painful negotiation session as the only union that didn't accept the contract offers.

It's a tough situation to be in, but the problem with the "shut the fucking place down" people is that they are just as bad as management who doesn't negotiate in good faith.

And to be quite honest, the state of the newspaper industry being what it is, and the general incompetence of newspaper management not withstanding, they might be willing to go to the mattress on this too. It's an ugly fight.

The absolute worst part of this story to me though is the 20% of union members not voting. That makes me weep for America.

[HomeBrew1901]

Oh please. You don't know the half of it. I could have voted yes and only received a 2% paycut (due to my low wage), but I know how strongly other people I worked with felt about voting no, and I chose to put my own self interests aside.

It sucks. It's not a good day. You can't accuse me of being selfish cause I didn't accept some ridiculous offer from management. A lot of people here basically feel that you either give us something we can work with, or just shut the fucking place down. There's no in between. A 23% wage cut would just be the beginning of the end. Or the middle of the end. The end.

So basically you would rather lose anywhere between 23% - 100% of your pay instead of 2% so 170 people could keep their lifetime contracts. I'm sure you have me on ignore, but I'm still trying to wrap my arms around how any of what you said makes sense.

What am I missing here?

edit: If someone not on Corsi's ignore list could repost this so that I get an answer I'd appreciate it.

This post has been edited by HomeBrew1901: 09 June 2009 - 03:01 PM

[Dan Murfman]

So basically you would rather lose anywhere between 23% - 100% of your pay instead of 2% so 170 people could keep their lifetime contracts. I'm sure you have me on ignore, but I'm still trying to wrap my arms around how any of what you said makes sense.

What am I missing here?

edit: If someone not on Corsi's ignore list could repost this so that I get an answer I'd appreciate it.

[HomeBrew1901]

Honestly Corsi, you sound like a rookie ball player that is clean voting for a strike instead of a drug testing policy to protect a bunch of superstars that are on PEDs and trying to protect their contracts, while hurting the rest of the league.

edit: Thanks Dan.

This post has been edited by HomeBrew1901: 09 June 2009 - 03:11 PM

[Corsi Combover]

Honestly Corsi, you sound like a rookie ball player that is clean voting for a strike instead of a drug testing policy to protect a bunch of superstars that are on PEDs and trying to protect their contracts, while hurting the rest of the league.

edit: Thanks Dan.

Can we discuss this one we know for sure whether the 23% wage cut becomes a reality. Until then, my (and others) suspicions that it was nothing more than a bluff are completely legitimate.

[Corsi Combover]

Well, now you have a 23% pay cut (pending an injunction), and either a few years of litigation in front of a NLRB or another likely painful negotiation session as the only union that didn't accept the contract offers.

It's a tough situation to be in, but the problem with the "shut the fucking place down" people is that they are just as bad as management who doesn't negotiate in good faith.

And to be quite honest, the state of the newspaper industry being what it is, and the general incompetence of newspaper management not withstanding, they might be willing to go to the mattress on this too. It's an ugly fight.

The absolute worst part of this story to me though is the 20% of union members not voting. That makes me weep for America.

It sucks. That's all you can say. And fortunately, I'm in a position without children, a mortgage, very little school loans, etc, that I can somewhat afford to lose my job or be forced to leave this job more than others. With that in mind, I wasn't going to vote selfishly. A yes vote, in my opinion, was a selfish vote.