Today's Globe question: what makes an impasse?

Scrappy tabloid scribe allegedly too scrappy

Guild, Times Co. inching toward agreement?

3 Comments

• Lylah said:

  The way I understand it, they needed to be able to declare impasse in order to impose the 23% cut, but they don't necessarily need to be at impasse in order to continue to implement it. Also: NYT has been very careful to call the recent confabs "meetings" and not "negotiations" -- maybe that has something to do with the impasse, maybe not.

  Re: your second point -- NYT's agreement with the other unions at the Globe were contingent upon NYT getting $10M in savings from the Guild, voluntarily or involuntarily. The 23% cut does that; if they rescind the cut, they could jeopardize their agreements with the other unions.

  June 17, 2009 5:24 PM

• Mike Saunders said:

  Adam, impasses can last for years with periods of negotiation. An impasse at the Salem News lasted 5 1/2 years. IIRC, a Globe impasse in the mid 90s lasted almost two.

  June 17, 2009 5:27 PM

• InsiderNegot said:

  Impasse is not just an expression, it is a legal term. The NYT doesn't really care and won't have to prove anyting.

  Once Impasse is declared, the union has the option of going to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and argue that they are not at a legal impasse. While they may win in the end, the process can take months. Months that members are suffering under a 23% pay cut.

  Guild leadership took a calculated risk that the Globe would not impose the 23% cut if the proposal was voted down. They lost that bet. They have apparently decided now that either their NLRB case is weak or that they do not want or cannot politically fight the Globe for months while their members suffer the wage cut.

  You can be sure that any deal done now will require the withdrawal of the Guild's NLRB charges.

  June 21, 2009 1:31 AM

Leave a Comment