Wednesday, August 16, 2006

It takes TWO to tango

Times management, apparently tired of what it calls the "labor dance," asked Wednesday for a temporary hold in bargaining with the Guild in an effort to, in its words, "cut to the chase."

Company Senior VP for Labor Relations and Human Resources Alayne Fardella suggested bargaining continue only after the commission-only salespeople have brought their counterproposal to the table. Then, she said, the two teams can come together to "wrap things up."

"On Friday," Fardella said, "let's put everything on the table and let's make a commitment to throw things off. Trying to balance how we cut through the more traditional labor dance and get to the end."

For the second meeting in a row, Times management came to the table with no proposals and no counterproposals, other than a sentiment that we should take a break and "cut to the chase." It left most of the Guild team wondering this: If the company is so interested in wrapping this up, then why has it essentially stalled for the past three weeks? After all, we still have outstanding proposals, but the company seems resistant to negotiation.

That was never more clear than near the end of the session. The Guild team agreed to make Thursday a caucus day, and then asked Times chief negotiator Chris Biencourt if the company had an answer on our proposal for 25 cent raises, which we gave the company almost a week ago.

"We'll give an answer on Friday," he said.

The startled look on Guild AO Liz Brown's face was priceless.

Sheri Williams, Guild bargainer, bristled at the suggestion that the Guild team wasn't already trying to make progress: "I take issue with the idea that we may have been doing some kind of a 'labor dance,' " she said. "Every day we come with a list and make a commitment to make some kind of movement. Last time, your side came to the table with nothing. If you had been prepared to move last Friday, I think we could have possibly been at the end."

It was a sentiment echoed by Guild bargainer Paul Morgan: "I'm all for making movement. But this is two meetings in a row when you've come with nothing concrete. We have all kinds of stuff that we're willing to put out on the table. I totally agree with your sentiment (to get his done). I have a great job I want to get back to. I don't know what you're hoping to accomplish with a speech that hangs it all out there and tries to usher us quickly to (conclusion)."

Guild bargainer Darryl Sclater said a quick resolution without proper debate and discussion could create more problems than it solves.

"What we agree on here is not the final word," he said. "It has to go out and be voted on by the membership as a whole. It could be counterproductive to rush a deal through and make people feel that we didn't (try everything we could)."

Guild prez Yoko Kuramoto-Eidsmoe asked why, if the company is prepared to make progress, it couldn't do so without a break.

"When Paul (Morgan, Guild bargainer) said 'It feels like we're playing games,' it struck me that this whole labor process . . . it seems like it's not what we're trying to accomplish," Fardella said. "We were trying to keep it as least contentious as possible."

So the Guild team will meet on Thursday to discuss its options, with the intention - as always - of returning to the table on Friday and making progress.

6 Comments:

At Wednesday, August 16, 2006, Blogger Yoko said...

Oops. Paul wrote this entry and I accidentally posted it using my logon. (Didn't mean to steal your byline, Paul!)

Yoko

 
At Wednesday, August 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Management had better come on Friday ready to really move and finish its part in this "dance."

If they think that stalling and stonewalling is going to make us happier, they're mistaken.

 
At Wednesday, August 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I realize each contract is its own thing, but is it possible to negotiate any future assurances?
That is, if we accept a wage freeze now, could we ask the company to reciprocate by promising us something better when the paper's financial fortunes improve?

 
At Wednesday, August 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

History repeating itself ... if the company wants to make progress, it can take a step in the right direction on Friday. If not the bad blood begins again - how sad. It is obvious who is being "contentious".

 
At Thursday, August 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's really hard not to take this personally. Management just wants us to suck it up and suck it up. As if those hard-fought raises we got in the last contract actually kept up with the cost of living in this city. Hah! My ability to support my family is eroding year by year. I feel like a chump for staying. And management is agreeing. They think they can keep sticking it to us. It's one thing to say the paper isn't making money, it's another to stiff us with more management-rights horseshit and that ridiculous 2-in-10 proposal. I will not approve any contract with that in it.

And on the same day we get A1 news that Congress and the president are going to screw over the American working class yet another way, by making our pensions even less secure. Christ on a crutch, I'm disgusted. I thoroughly expect the Times will freeze our pensions or radically reduce their value, just as soon as it's legally possible to do so.

But I am grateful to the Guild bargaining team. You guys have my thanks and admiration. Hang in there and keep fighting back.

 
At Thursday, August 17, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I urge the bargaining team to listen to what the members have been saying here and not go below the proposal of 25 cents an hour each year (a 1 percent raise) and a "freeze" of our current wage diversion.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home