No deal:
Globe guild rejects contract
New proposal fails by narrow 277-265 union vote
By Louisa Ada Seltzer
Jun 9, 2009
The Boston Globe’s biggest union has had its say, yesterday voting down a proposed contract that would have slashed salaries by 8.3 percent, instituted a voluntary one-week furlough and eliminated job protection clauses.
Now the question is what the New York Times Co., the paper’s owner, will do next. Will it attempt to break the union, with a promised 23 percent wage reduction, will it reopen negotiations with the guild, or will it close the paper?
Last night the Times Co. had tough words for the roughly 700 Boston Newspaper Guild members, who voted 277-265 to reject a deal that would have helped cut expenses by some $10 million annually.
That’s the amount the Times Co. said it needed to slash two months ago, when it threatened to close the venerable paper if it did not win union concessions to reduce its budget by $20 million total, countering an estimated $85 million loss at the paper this year.
After voting ended last night, the Times issued a statement saying that the 23 percent wage reduction would begin next week, while the BNG, the paper’s biggest guild, representing most of its editorial and advertising departments, said it was ready to restart negotiations.
“This evening we have sent a letter to the Guild stating that as a result of the rejection of this proposal, we have reverted to our alternative Final Record Proposal, which provides for a 23 percent wage reduction for all Guild members,” said the Times Co. statement. “This will secure the $10 million in costs savings needed from the Guild, and will allow the Globe to reach the targeted $20 million in savings needed from all our major unions.”
The company has already come to agreements with the paper’s nearly half-dozen other unions for concessions totaling $10 million.
Guild president Dan Totten countered: “The Boston Newspaper Guild is committed to resuming good-faith negotiations with the New York Times Company and Globe management to reach an agreement.”
In recent weeks, the Times Co. backed off from its earlier threat to close the paper if the necessary concessions weren’t made, after the BNG accused the company of negotiating at gunpoint.
Guild members were deeply divided over the contract. Union leaders never offered an endorsement of the plan, and some accused them of being too aggressive in their negotiations. Others believed that aggressiveness was necessary, pointing angrily to more favorable deals reached with employees at the NYT Co.’s flagship paper, the Times.
|
|
|
