The Phoenix

Who won the Globe showdown?

My first thought, when I heard about the tentative agreement struck by management and the Boston Newspaper Guild last night, was that Guild head Dan Totten must be patting himself on the back right now. After all, Totten's non-endorsement of the contract proposal rejected by the Guild last month was predicated on the assumption that he could get a better offer from the Times Co. if his membership just gave him the chance.

But did he? Yes, the current pay-cut proposal--8 percent when an unpaid furlough is factored in, as opposed to 10 percent in the contract rejected last month--is lower. As a result, though, the benefit cuts are more severe.

Now recall that, earlier this month, some Guild members were actually arguing that the benefit cuts contained in the proposal that was rejected on June 8--which were less severe than those contained in the new contract offer--were so onerous that the Times Co.'s threatened 23-percent pay cut was actually preferable.

Guild members, I'd love to get your take on this. Do you see the latest contract offer as superior to the one that was rejected earlier this month, or inferior, or roughly equivalent? And given that, what's your take on the representation you've received from Totten and the other Guild leaders?

Published Jun 24 2009, 10:02 AM by Adam Reilly

InsiderNegot said:

I am not a Guild member but have knowledge of these and other negotiations at the Globe.

So far, you are the first analyst that has taken a serious look at what the Guild and their leadership has had to say throughout this process. From where I sit, it appears the Guild could have gotten this deal weeks ago.

The Guild took a calculated risk that the Globe would not implement the 23% pay cut,and that they would go back to the table with a mandate from their members in an attempt to reduce the $10M in cuts. Guild leadership let this opinion be known to many members prior to the last vote. They lost that bet, and they went back with a mandate from their members all right: Get rid of this 23% pay cut.

Make no mistake, it was the implementation of the 23% pay cut on its members that forced the Guild to bargain seriously.

Bottom line, the Globe (NYT) gets what they wanted all along ($10 M in savings), elimination of life-time jobs and an end to the pension, with a deal the Guild could have made weeks ago. In the meantime the Guild membership will suffer a 23% pay cut until it is ratified.

Even if they get some of it back after July 20, 5 or 6 weeks with 23% less pay from people who live week to week is painful enough but they may pay more for health insurance as a result of the deal to make up some of the difference.

The Guild membership deserves answers to the questions you pose. I hope they will ask at their next meeting.

June 24, 2009 12:06 PM
MalJohnson said:

Not meaning you personally, Adam, but only a fool thinks the House doesn't always walk away with the winnings. They just don't celebrate in public. And, btw, the Guild members are out 23% of their wages until after July 20.

June 24, 2009 1:43 PM