I'd like the panel to discuss the conflict of interest re: the New York Times Jerusalem Bureau Chief Ethan Bronner. Bronner's son serves in the Israeli Defense Forces and readers alerted the New...
Marathon bargaining yields no Boston Globe agreement, Guild and New York Times negotiatiors to meet again Monday
posted by Ralph Ranalli on June 17, 2009
When is an impasse not an impasse? Or, as Alice would say, the Boston Globe contract negotiations are certainly getting curiouser and curiouser.
A second 13-hour-plus marathon bargaining session ended early this morning without an agreement, but with the Newspaper Guild and New York Times Company representatives agreeing to meet again on Monday.
The Boston Herald's Christine McConville reported that Guild president Dan Totten emerged from the session at about 5 a.m. and announced: "Talks are ongoing and we remain hopeful.”
Boston Globe management spokesman Bob Powers, meanwhile, e-mailed a statement confirming the Monday meeting. But his message also stated that: "The wage reduction of 23% remains in effect."
My question is this: Since the imposition of the 23 percent wage cut was based on the Times claim of a bargaining "impasse," how can Times officials be participating in marathon bargaining sessions yet asserting an impasse at the same time? Someone help me with this.
Comments
I am a Guild member and a Globe employee. The current contract between the Guild and the Globe is valid from January 6, 2006 through December 31, 2009. On page 3 of the contract there is a reopener clause allowing for the articles on salary and health insurance to be renegotiated as of January 1, 2009. It covers these two articles only. The Globe and the Guild negotiated and could not reach agreement. The Globe's final offer was an 8.4% salary decrease, a very large increase in health insurance weekly deductions, plus items not related to the reopener including a pension freeze, elimination of matching 401K contributions, annual 5 day unpaid furloughs, elimination of life insurance and retiree death benefit, plus two union busting provisions- elimination of lifetime job guarantees and a layoff without regard to seniority. The Globe threatened to implement a 23% wage cut if it's final offer was rejected. On June 8 the Guild members voted no and rejected the Globe's final offer. If impasse is to be declared it should be on the final offer, not the final offer's 23% decrease alternative. However, if there is failure to agree on a contract reopener, shouldn't the conditions of the original contract remain in effect?
Michael, I must say I was wondering the same thing. I'm posting more soon on just how empty I think the Times' claim of "impasse" is.
The real answer is in the state of labor law in this country. Impasse is not just an expression, it is a legal term. The NYT doesn't really care and won't have to prove anyting. The claim may or may not be empty but under the current law, it stay in effect until proven otherwise. 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.