A little less conversation,
a little more action

Negotiations between your fellow Guild members and representatives of Times management moved forward on Friday as we reached tentative agreement on advertising goal-setting and on requirements that workers bring their cars to work every day. Also, in response to our conversation about Home Delivery workers’ problem getting enough sleep, managers were reminded that it’s OK to nap during breaks.

While the agreement on advertising Standards of Performance and goals wasn’t as comprehensive as what we had proposed, the negotiations team feels it’s a good step in the right direction. We tentatively agreed to the following proposal from the company (all language new):

“8.4.4 Advertising revenue goal expectations shall be established according to an interactive goal-setting process which is defined in writing and posted or otherwise made available to all sales representatives. Upcoming vacations, leaves of absence, desk coverage, trends, major account losses and gains and other factors will be considered in this interactive goal-setting process.”

This language commits the company to the kind of clarity and consistency that advertising sales staffers said is so vital to their ability to do their jobs effectively.

In response to several members’ requests, we had proposed language allowing people who are required to use their cars to leave the car at home on days when they’re pretty sure they won’t need them for their jobs. Management brought a counterproposal adding a requirement that we get supervisors’ OK in advance.

We think it’s reasonable for, say, a reporter’s boss to know whether or not he or she has a car available, so we agreed to the following addition to item 19.1 of the contract:

“With advance approval of their manager, employees who are required to use their automobiles in the course of their employment may use alternate means to arrive at work on days when the employees are reasonably certain that the use of their automobiles will not be necessary.”

Guild bargainers had proposed language saying “The Publisher agrees that employees may nap while on breaks and lunch periods.”

Company representatives said that wasn’t necessary, because they felt it was obvious that managers shouldn’t be preventing people from sleeping.

We told them that in some cases, managers actually were telling people not to nap.

To fix that problem, Home Delivery Manager Mike Sheehan sent out the following note in an e-mail to supervisors on Friday: “I also want to take this opportunity to re-affirm our position regarding employee break periods. Just as a reminder: what a person chooses to do while on break, including resting and napping, is their business as long as it does not interfere with the work of other employees.”

Sheehan also is forming a committee including Guild negotiator Barb Heller to find ways to alleviate the safety and health hazards caused by Home Delivery employees’ lack of sleep.

On the matter of notice before a layoff, we had proposed to increase the notice requirement from four weeks to seven weeks, reasoning that people need as much time as possible to plan for their future when they lose a job.

Company reps said that they were sympathetic to that argument, and noted that they had in prior cases given more than the minimum four weeks’ notice. Because of the unpredictability of future economic conditions, however, they were reluctant to increase that minimum.

Their proposal doesn’t increase the notice period, but it does capture in writing the company’s commitment to give as much notice as it can. We agreed to the following addition to the end of Article 4.2:

“The Publisher agrees that the four-week notice period required (or pay in lieu) is a minimum period, and that often it will be desirable and helpful to employees to receive more advance notice than the minimum. The Publisher agrees to exercise its discretion in good faith and to give more notice to the greatest extent possible in keeping with business consideration.”

Management also gave us new language to consider in the areas of substance abuse and grievance timelines, and we’re reviewing those proposals.

We’re also taking a closer look at a proposed new “reporting associate” position and the list of jobs to be excluded from the bargaining unit.

One of the key remaining issues where we haven’t yet found common ground is sick leave.

We’ve modified our proposal so that it simply takes the current Seattle Times sick-leave policy and puts it in the contract.

We think that this is a reasonable, common-sense solution to your concerns about the confusion surrounding sick leave. On our bargaining surveys, this was a consistent complaint in all departments, and we hope that the company will see the benefit in easing all our minds on this matter.

(For the Guild’s complete current proposal on sick leave, see the blog post below.)