Contract ratified
The members of the Pacific Northwest Newspaper Guild (CWA Local 37082) voted to accept a two-year contract proposal that included a wage freeze. The Guild’s policy is to not announce the vote totals. What we can say is just about half of the members took time to participate, and there was a significant "no" vote.
This contract proposal did not receive the unanimous support of the Guild negotiating team, but a majority did recommend a very reluctant yes vote. The majority of the team decided that the time is not right for a labor battle.
We are disappointed that the company has chosen to not invest in its employees, many of whom are facing massive cost-of-living increases. We think that’s a bad business decision.
We are deeply concerned about the Seattle Times Company’s approach to labor relations. The company resisted engaging the Guild bargaining team in true negotiations. It dismissed many of the proposals brought forward by the Guild, which came directly from surveys of the employees and most of which cost the company no money. Its answers to proposals were often slow in coming and cynical in nature. This only lengthened the bargaining process and increased tensions between the bargaining teams.
The Seattle Times repeatedly referred to the union as a “third party” in negotiations. The company fails to recognize that its employees ARE the Guild.
Regrettably, we are forced to conclude that the Seattle Times does not want to bargain with its employees in good faith. Our sincere desire is the company comes to future negotiations understanding that the people sitting across the table represent the interests of more than 600 of its employees - and we hope the company displays a lot more respect.
After hearing all of the discontent in ratification meetings, the Guild bargaining team encourages the members to add their individual voices to the comments below.
posted by Paul Morgan @ Thursday, September 14, 2006
14 comments
14 Comments:
It's sad to have to accept such a poor contract. Now is the time to use that red t-shirt so often that the color will bleach out.
A comment heard from a former Teamster and current Guild member:
"You can say what you want about John Rabine, but he would have said 'if you want to dictate to me, I'm outta here, call me when you're ready for serious negotiations.'"
Hey Biencourt:
Seattle Times staff is the Guild, the Guild is Seattle Times staff. There's no "third party." Get that through your thick skull.
And for crying out loud, remember that in 2008 and treat the Guild committee of Times employees with some respect.
I have a feeling some people won't mind it being called a third party because some people don't actually have any interest in being in the Guild, we just do it because we have to.
We have a contract, something most workers in our economy don't have. I applaud the efforts of our negotiators, and I'm sorry I didn't show for the negotiations but they were scheduled right as my shift started. We have 18 months to figure out how to get the other half of our members interested enough to vote, as well as ride out the big waves that the JOA and possible staff reductions may bring. Then the next negotiations start. It's not that far away. Let's limit the name-calling and side-taking so that we can be stronger then and hope the Times Co. is financially stronger then, too. We owe it to ourselves to stick together, those of us who stay (as I intend to) and build on this "standoff."
To those of us who consider the union unnecessary, or an obstacle, annoyance, money pit, whatever: Look around you today at industries where people are not unionized, from Walmart to Amazon et al.
Jobs are regularly outsourced to other countries. Workers can have inadequate or no health insurance. Companies are able to lay people off in droves, in order to maximize profits and make Wall Street happy.
Whatever your misgivings are about being part of a union, educate yourself about the likely outcome if we did not have one. And please join with us during the next round of contract talks, voting and speaking up, within a democratic organization that seeks to represent your best interests.
If we want this vote to have meaning we need to use the time in this contract to mobilize, to set up a strategy for the next wave of negotiations.
One of the chief concerns that came out of this wave of negotiations is that the company thinks the guild is weak. We need to change our perceptions and those of our fellow members in order to make ourselves strong.
The single most important thing we can do to increase our solidarity is participate. It doesn't have to be a big deal, it can be something as simple as showing up to work with the red T-shirt.
Beyond that, we should make an effort to tie ourselves to other guild members. In my department, I have daily contact with about 10 guild members. That number is small, and makes it easy to feel isolated and powerless in the face of negotiations. To help remedy this, we should have gatherings... Maybe not activist 'rally' type gatherings just yet, but gatherings where we can meet and get to know the other people really affected by the contract.
RE: The comment about the Teamsters, above:
For that tough stance to work, you have to have members who are willing to not only talk the talk but walk the walk ... meaning WALK OUT when and if the time comes. And I'm not sure we were willing to do that.
You have to ask if you're angry enough to do what it takes to get what you want. Are you?
How many people checked the Guild web site last night to see the results and with the very next click went over to the craigslist job listings because they couldn't bear the thought of two more years of this?
I know I did.
I understand hard times for the company.
I accept the reality of a wage freeze.
What I will no longer tolerate is being made to feel like a disposable commodity by the Seattle Times. I've had it with being disrespected, disregarded, and played for a fool.
I hope to turn the Times into a disposable employer soon.
My best wishes to those who decide to stay.
"What we can say is just about half of the members took time to participate"
Awesome! Great message to send to management: "We love getting reamed, can we please have some more?"
Apathy reigns in the newsroom.
Congrats to all you folks too busy checking your myspace pages to get up for 5 minutes and vote yes or no on this contract.
Woo-hoot! Hey, totally add me as a friend already would you?
If I see one more Times company communication stating their desire to "preserve as many jobs as possible" I'm going to gag. It's just subtle blackmail. We have layers and layers of management and more being hired every day. There's money to hire more managers, but not take care of the workers? Sounds like retribution to me.
The Times spent and hired like crazy to show a loss for the JOA dissolution - and who thinks the company will be loyal and keep those employees if there aren't two newspapers in town? We need our unions now more than ever. Bargaining for our working conditions is the only reason we have medical/dental/vision, vacation, the right to grieve over unfair treatment, and so on.
Wake up and get involved - YOU are the Union.
When this company asked for help, I helped -- I voted to open the contract for the pension plan, and for the RIF. I wanted to help the company out. Now I know that the company takes it all for granted and couldn't care less about us. I will never vote to open our contract again. I'll bet anything in the next couple years the company asks us to let them lay-off out of seniority in the newsroom again. And I will say: tough luck!
I voted NO to give the company the pension funds and I voted NO for the new contract. It bothers me when the company says if we vote no there will be more lay offs, how fast was it after we gave them the pension funds we had 100 people layed off? They couldn't throw us a bone of any kind to make us feel wanted such as a personal holiday? They don't care!!!!
Post a Comment
<< Home