Our look at the books
By Liz Brown
Guild Administrative Officer
As part of our negotiations for two new contracts at The Seattle Times, the Guild-CWA bargaining teams asked Times negotiators to open the company’s finances to our scrutiny. We wanted this because the Times is insisting that employees accept a two-year wage freeze.
About a month into bargaining, the Times agreed to show us the books. We had to sign a confidentiality agreement that set strict limits on the information a CWA representative would see. Last week, CWA Research Economist Irvin Stout met Mae Numata, the Times chief financial officer, to review the data.
Under the terms of the confidentiality agreement, the Times provided Stout with information that was intended to allow him to confirm or deny the following four company assertions:
- The Seattle Times Newspaper has failed to meet its budgeted operating revenue goals for the years 2000 through 2005, and year to date through May 2006;
- The Seattle Times Newspaper has incurred net losses, excluding property sales, for the years 2000 through 2005;
- The losses, collectively, amount to millions of dollars over that period;
- Unaffiliated staff at the Company were subject to a general wage freeze during 2001 and 2005.
The review of records verified the first three assertions to Stout's professional satisfaction.
Information presented to verify the fourth assertion was murkier, and Stout was unable to conclusively verify a general wage freeze. He was shown a sample of 120 unaffiliated employees' payroll records, and those employees had received no wage increases in 2001 or 2005. There are 550 unaffiliated employees, and Stout was not provided with wage histories for the remaining unaffiliated employees.
Alayne Fardella, Senior Vice President for Human Resources and Labor Relations, said last week in negotiations that some unaffiliated employees received raises if they were promoted or if their job duties changed by more than 50 percent.
Given the limited terms of the confidentiality agreement, Mr. Stout was unable to access or divulge additional information.
“I think the membership should know that things were ‘bad’ but have improved somewhat,” Stout said. “The company appears to be on the right road to recovery but is not quite there yet.”
posted by Yoko @ Tuesday, August 08, 2006
6 comments
6 Comments:
So, Now that we know the Times is kinda telling the truth about their financial woes?
How about some guarantees for when we do turn this around? The Times wants us to "invest" in their future and ours. Ok. If and I realize this is a big if the arbitrator rules in the Times favor what happens then? The Times will have the "millions" that it is spending on litigation. I for one would be willing to "postpone" our raises if we had some sort of guarantee that we too would benefit from the Times finally being "out of the woods".
What is the "sign" suppose to be that things are better now. When we see that "sign" we get our raises.
I can assure you that these managers that have not received raises or bonuses have been promised all kinds of things if they can "just hang on". Lets get some "promises" in writing instead of having to remind the Times that we "stuck" with them through this "tough time" during our next negoiations.
Guild members have more in common with most middle managers than the managers do with top management. They've been starved as much (well, almost as much) as we have. There seems to be an attempt by the company to alienate the affiliated workers from their supervisors by claiming the Guild wants guarantees the managers won't get raises if we don't. Let's not fall into this divide-and-conquer trap. Deceptive company claims that managers were "subject" to a freeze isn't the same as saying that all of them had their pay frozen. But I'm sure many of them are not paid what they're worth, just like us. They should be paid better, too. Although the newspaper may have been mismanaged into losses, the COMPANY (including all its holdings) has the money to do the right thing ...
Is it merely a "wage" freeze? Were bonuses given to unaffiliated workers from 2001 to 2005?
That's a good question.
Unfortunately, I don't think that the information our economist was allowed to see would have answered that question.
Thanks,
Yoko
How about affiliated workers? Let's not kid ourselves, there's union employees that are getting deals to stay on board right now. Those who aren't, must be considered replaceable.
I understand that the paper has fallen on hard times. Why do they treat their employees like they are insignificant slaves? I don't feel this company understands the importance of treating their employees, who are working very hard to bring in business and keep customers,with some respect and apprecation for sticking around during the hard times. There are so very many people who have already left the company, and many others turn down the opportunity to work at the Times because they see how the employees are being treated. Now they want us to accept a wage freeze. Are they going to have a diversion freeze too? If this wage freeze happens, not only won't we get a raise for 2 years at a time when prices are skyrocketing on everything. After the diversions dip into the freezed wages we will be so far in the hole that it will take a large increase when we finally get a raise. Knowing the lack of generousity of the Times that will never happen. They will find yet another way to take advantage of their employees. That's why so many are leaving including management. I really don't care about the stewardship of the Blethen Family. They are in business to make money, I am here to receive a paycheck for the hours I work. It should be a fair trade, but it doesn't feel that way. Seattle Times finally show some consideration for your employees and give them a raise like the Seattle PI. $20 week sounds fine to me. It sure beats nothing and less after the diversion!
Post a Comment
<< Home