“Ummm, no,” is pretty much how we can best accurate sum up the New York Guild’s 133-0 vote on Time Inc.’s latest “concessions.” The memo, which features bullet-pointed prose, post-jump.
On Time #23 June 22, 2007
‘LAST, BEST AND FINAL’ OFFER
BITES THE DUST, 133-0
Membership says, ‘No, in no uncertain terms
The membership Thursday resoundingly rejected Time Inc.’s “last best and final” offer by a 133-to-0 vote.
The turnout was the most spectacular in memory and everyone on the negotiating committee and at the Local gives you our heartfelt thanks. We’re hoping this will pave the way back to the negotiating table and a fair and equitable contract.
In releasing a story about the Newspaper Guild leadership’s recommendation to reject the Publisher’s contract proposal, Bloomberg News quoted a Time Inc. spokeswoman and saying the company had given us “very fair and reasonable proposal, including very generous severance, merit pay system and overtime after 40 hours work.”
HEY, IT’S THE LAW!
We guess she didn’t think anyone would take note that overtime after 40 hours work is guaranteed by federal law.
And she didn’t point out to the Bloomberg reporter that we now have overtime after 35 hours work.
And she didn’t point out to the Bloomberg reporter that the Guild had tentatively agreed to that proposal.
A merit pay system?
She spouted that off like it is something good.
Nobody, according to Time Inc.’s plan, is guaranteed an annual increase.
In any year, according to Time Inc.’s spokesman at the negotiations, the entire pool of merit money, could be handed over to one individual.
Very generous severance?
The Time Inc. spokeswoman didn’t note that the Time Inc. proposal was a drastic reduction from the separation pay that is currently in the contract.
She didn’t mention the elimination of notice pay for layoffs.
She didn’t mention the elimination of severance pay for terminations.
NOT AS GOOD AS WHAT WE’VE HAD
Every item that the spokeswoman pointed out is a retrogression from what was in the contract that expired on March 22. She didn’t mention anything that the company was giving us that’s an improvement in that contract.
She could have.
She could have bragged about how the company is willing to give us 30 days to file for arbitration after a grievance is rejected rather than 20 days, which is in the expired contract. That’s an improvement.
In the eyes of Guild members, that improvement apparently doesn’t outweigh Time Inc.’s horrendous wage proposal or its drastic cuts in separation pay or its demand to have unilateral control over sabbatical leaves and meal money or its demand to be free from following any past practices not explicitly noted in the contract or its demand to have an unfettered right to set holiday schedules or its demand not to even consult with the Guild if it feels a change in medical benefits isn’t a decrease or its demand to permanently eliminate profit sharing from the contract or its demand. . .
The lengthening the time to file for arbitration apparently doesn’t outweigh all of those things. One hundred and thirty-three members said it doesn’t outweigh those things.
# # #
There are no comments yet. Post yours!