December 18, 2006
No Confidence, No Faith, No Stomach
Guild members apparently couldn't stand the thought of just voting yes tonight on the contract agreement they reached with the papers' owners. They also passed another motion, declaring No Confidence in the owners' desire to publish great newspapers.
The Guild memo Stu Bykofsky just sent out has all the details.
NEWSPAPER GUILD RATIFIES CONTRACT BY A 498-69 VOTE
A new three-year contract was ratified by members of Local 10 of The Newspaper Guild, by a 498-69 vote.
The final vote was announced after 9 p.m., at the end of a meeting that started at 7 p.m.
At the start of the meeting, Diane Mastrull, chair of the Inquirer-Daily News unit, with some 900-plus members, recommended members accept the “unanimous vote of the bargaining committee” for approval.
There were some 200 members present at the peak of the meeting, held in Temple Rodeph Shalom on North Broad Street. Some 275 members, who were unable to attend the meeting, voted by absentee ballot. A total of 567 ballots were cast.
Speaking about the contract, Mastrull said, “it could have been far worse.”
After her recommendation the floor was open for comments and questions. Thirteen members spoke, a majority of them having questions about pension provisions in the contract. Only one speaker directly urged rejection of the contract
After the questions subsided and a motion was approved to start the vote, another motion was presented, and approved after some debate.
That motion “instructs the Local 10 Executive Board to discuss - and pass -- a resolution saying the following:
“1- Because of their tight-fisted, slash-and-burn, anti-labor tactics, we have NO CONFIDENCE in the new owners’ actual desire to publish great newspapers
“2- Because of the new owners’ recent record of poor business decisions, which includes hiring executives while promising layoffs of union workers, we have NO FAITH in their desire to treat employees with fairness and dignity
“3- Because of the yawning chasm between what the new owners promised and what they now are delivering, we have NO STOMACH to hear any more of their cheerful prattle.
“For the new owners we have
“No Confidence,
“No Faith,
“No Stomach.”
An amendment, which was accepted, asked that the new owners be mentioned by name.
Posted by steve at 09:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Deal Approved
Brian P. Tierney and Henry Holcomb made a deal Guild members aren't thrilled with.
It's official. The votes have been counted and according to Guild spokesman Stu Bykofsky the yes's carried the day, 498 to 69.
Bykofsky wasn't inclined to ascribe any meaning to the numbers. "I can't say what it means," he says. "But the contract passed."
Layoffs at the Inquirer will comprise the next drama. But for now it's time for Guild members to lick their wounds, and for Tierney to chart a new course for Philadelphia's newspapers.
Posted by steve at 09:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Votes Have Been Cast
A Guild member just notified PW that the votes have been cast. Now it's a matter of waiting to see them tallied.
The membership is, of course, expected to pass the tentative agreement they reached last week with Philadelphia Media Holdings. The question is how many people might have shown up to vote no and make sure their displeasure is heard.
"I'm not going to [predict] this thing," Guild spokesman Stu Bykofsky said this afternoon. "But in the past, the membership has never voted to reject the recommendation of their negotiating committee."
Posted by steve at 08:03 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
December 15, 2006
More On DiStefano
We made some more calls on the DiStefano to Bloomberg rumor, and then had another chat with Joseph, who did offer this nugget.
"I have received several phone calls from other organizations," he said. "A lot of people here have. That's not unusual at a time like this."
As for the Bloomberg rumor, DiStefano said "You may know more than I do."
Posted by steve at 03:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
No Go Joe?
We like the graphic and the thinking behind Phawker's latest item: Tierney's List: Inky Diaspora Begins.
But the information isn't spot-on. Our buddy Jonathan Valania is reporting that Inky scribe Joe DiStefano has announced a move to Bloomberg News. We called Joe, and he says "There has been no announcement about me. The item as it's written is false."
Hmmm.
Certainly, we've heard numerous rumors about various Inquirer staffers quick-stepping for the door. And such departures will ultimately determine how many people wind up being laid off in the upcoming bloodletting.
Posted by steve at 02:42 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Now That's a Memo!
Part plea. Part condolence letter. Part shot across management's bow. Read on...
December 15, 2006
Dear Guild Members,
We the Bargaining Committee are asking you to vote YES for the tentative contract agreement.
What we will never ask of you is to not be angry about it.
Be angry. We are. But vote YES.
It is a contract full of pain and insult. It is a contract that requires sacrifice and trust.
It is a contract that Brian Tierney and the local investors should be ashamed of.
As one spirit-crushing proposal after another came across the table from our owners, we seethed.
And then we processed our anger and pledged to redirect it as constructive energy. The end result is the contract you’re being asked to support – one that is FAR better than the company wanted you to have.
Had we let our anger consume us, no good would have come of it. DO NOT let your anger drive your decision. DO NOT reject this tentative contract. If you do, you will see the worst of the company’s proposals replace those we have now – the ones the Bargaining Committee worked for months to secure.
We were insulted and angry, but we worked through that anger and focused on getting the best we could for you.
So spend the next few days working through your anger and focusing on the truth here: We need to take control of these newspapers through our work. We can be the true owners of these papers.
If we let our anger consume us, we will destroy the papers, destroy jobs and destroy families.
To Brian Tierney and his wealthy friends, it will be a mere tax write-off. They’ll move on, chalk it up as a bad investment and lick their wounds on their yachts in the Caribbean.
We are professionals first and foremost. We’ve been through a great deal together over the last few years. With each insulting development, with each new direction from management, we have endured. We have carried on with professionalism that our readers and advertisers have come to depend on.
We need to do that now more than ever. We are the heart and soul of the Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News.
In the closing minutes of the contract negotiations, I told company negotiators to deliver this message to Brian Tierney: “This contract is something no amount of Tastykakes, soft pretzels or commemorative coins will make up for. On our ledger, he finds himself in the negative category when it comes to goodwill.”
With this contract, we are giving him the opportunity he asked for to get these papers back on track. This contract does not, however, require us to give up our dedication, our pride and our resolve.
And that, friends, is our leverage going forward.
In solidarity and hope,
Diane Mastrull
Bargaining Committee Chair and PNI Unit Chair
Posted by steve at 12:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 14, 2006
Long, Dark Night
Newspaper Guild President Henry Holcomb spoke to union members last night at Congregation Rodeph Shalom Synagogue.
Last night's meeting was a pretty big body blow to the spirit of Inquirer and Daily News staff. Here's the full recap of a night they wish they could forget.
Posted by steve at 02:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Hard Day's Night
Wednesday night's informational session dragged on for more than three hours, during which the Newspaper Guild's negotiators suffered through the sorry task of explaining a deal they clearly found difficult to accept.
For now, here is Guild spokesman Stu Bykofsky's recap. We'll have more details later.
GUILD EXPLAINS CONTRACT TO MEMBERS IN MARATHON MEETING
The fireworks that some expected never materialized last night at a Guild meeting that lasted from 7 p.m. until 10:20 p.m. The meeting was somber as a funeral, as some hard-won benefits won over decades were given the last rites as a dozen members of the Guild negotiating team, and leadership, expressed bitterness about a contract they are forced to recommend to members.
More than 200 members attended. The Guild has some 900 members.
Guild leaders patiently answered questions about editorial and advertising rules, seniority, the pension, sick leave and other issues. Members were more mournful than mad, and they applauded the efforts of negotiators who have put in endless hours over the course of many days to come up with a contract that they themselves termed a "bitter pill." A few shed tears last night by the end of the meeting.
Several Guild members strongly questioned aspects of the contract and asked about the ramifications of rejecting it at a ratification meeting scheduled for 7 p.m. Monday at Temple Rodeph Shalom, 615 N. Broad St.
"This is not 1985," said Inquirer-Daily News Unit Chair Diane Mastrull, in reference to a 46-day strike, the longest in the papers' history. There is no guarantee of jobs "when we put down those picket signs."
The contract's only improvements, which Mastrull termed "minor," came for the Suburban Writers and Photographers unit. Members in that unit are paid less for the same work as members in the main unit.
Addressing the members, Mastrull said, "you can be angry" and cited a "sense of betrayal" the Guild feels about the publisher, but the Guild's bottom line was "to save jobs."
"Be angry, be disgusted, but direct it at people who overpaid for these papers so we have to bail them out."
Local President Henry Holcomb said the recommended, disagreeable contract, provides a foundation on which the Guild can build when business improves in the newspaper industry.
Posted by steve at 01:08 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 13, 2006
Ferrick Speaks...
From: Ferrick, Tom
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:45 AM
To: Ferrick, Tom
Subject: To Inquirer Guild members
As you know, the Guild reached tentative agreement with the company last night on a new contract.
To summarize: it is a shit sandwich.
The full details will be discussed at tonight’s meeting.
But, I know that people in this room are interested in the new language re reduction in force.
The current language bases RIF’s on seniority, with some enumerated exceptions.
The new language maintains seniority, but expands the enumerated exceptions to additional beats:
There are 21 beats enumerated, some filled by several people (Example: City Hall Bureau reporters.)
These were beats identified as “core beats” to the paper by the editors across the bargaining table.
However, the TA on RIF’s also includes bumping rights that say, in so many words, that if you held one of these beats in the past and you have higher seniority than the current occupant of that beat, you have the right to bump the junior incumbent in that position with the approval of the editor.
Attached is the exact language of the proposed change.
Keep in mind this is tentative. All the provisions must be approved by the members at ratification.
TF
Revise Article 27.4 as follows:
In the case of a reduction in force, employees who have been regularly assigned to one of the following positions at the Philadelphia Inquirer and/or Daily News for at least one year may be retained in such jobs despite their having less seniority than other employees who are in the same Article 27.2 group.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a senior member of the bargaining unit who had been regularly assigned to one of these jobs for at least one year at the Inquirer and/or Daily News is proposed for dismissal in a reduction of force s/he may bump a junior incumbent in that position with the approval of the editor of the respective publication. For each newsroom, the agreed upon positions are:
For the Inquirer:
Harrisburg Statehouse Bureau beat reporters
Trenton Statehouse Bureau beat reporters
City Hall beat reporters
Phillies beat reporter
Eagles beat reporter
Sixers beat reporter
Pennsylvania political beat reporter
Federal Court beat reporter
City Education beat reporter
Higher Education beat reporter
Suburban Education beat reporter
Regional Development beat reporters
Pharmaceutical Industry beat reporter
Public Health beat reporter
Online Breaking News bear reporter
College basketball reporters
Local Sports columnists
Metro Columnists
Restaurant Critic
Classical Music Critic
Fashion Columnist
Posted by steve at 04:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
More Details on Deal...
The Guild sent out a statement a little after 1 a.m., outlining the broad strokes of a deal with which they sound awfully unhappy.
Here are highlights:
Dec. 13, 2006
The Guild and the PN reached a tentative agreement on all issues at 10:15 p.m. Tuesday.
"It's a package requiring a lot of sacrifice from our members. But it is a package that is far less devastating than what the Company originally proposed," said Unit Chairwoman Diane Mastrull, who led the negotiating team into holding onto many of our benefits.
There's no sugar coating this contract. It is a disappointing, giveback deal.
Below is a brief description of the hot-button issues.
DURATION: 3 years. The contract expires at Midnight August 31, 2009.
WAGES: Employees shall receive no pay increase in the first year. Full-time employees shall receive a $1,500 bonus (paid in two parts) in the second year. Employees shall receive a $25 per week raise in the third year. Due to rising increases in health and welfare costs, it is possible that some if not all of this money will be diverted into the Guild's health and welfare fund which is responsible for your sick benefits.
PENSION: The Guild and PN will work through the Pension Board, which is comprised of three Guild trustees and three PN trustees, to merge with a multi-employer pension plan by Dec. 31, 2007. A multi-employer plan is a pension plan in which more than one employer participates. Many single-employer pension plans nowadays are also merging into multi-employer pension plans which provide economic incentives to companies and which are considered safer investments than single-employer funds.
Because our plan is healthy, it is an attractive merger partner and we are hoping to negotiate a seat on the board of the new fund. Employees will receive an additional year of benefit service credit on their pensions for the year 2007. Once merged into a multi-employer plan, our pension may be frozen, but there is also an option to keep the plan alive, with employee contributions coming through payroll diversions.
The Company will give $4 million to the Guild earmarked as a contribution to the new multi-employer plan or to fund an employee's existing 401(k) or establish a 401(k) for employees who do not yet have such an account. There are however, no plans for PN to contribute any additional money, or ongoing "match" to employees' 401(k) accounts.
There is tremendous financial incentive for the employer if the Pension Trustees can successfully establish a multi-employer plan merger. However, if such a merger does not take place, the company may eventually assume sole administration of the pension fund.
Because so many members have said they have little to no trust for our new owners, we have negotiated extraordinary transparency so we may monitor the plan and additionally, have full legal recourse in the event of any appearance of impropriety by PN with the pension fund.
Despite members' concerns, PN will not be able to invest our pension fund recklessly. Under the strict federal laws of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the employer shall be obligated to invest our pension fund with the utmost caution.
SENIORITY: There are changes in the reduction in force (layoff) language for the newsrooms and for advertising sales people but not for other job categories. In the newsrooms, all classes of editors, artists and photographers will continue to live under straight seniority. However, there are carve outs for some beat reporters, columnists and critics, as designated by what Inquirer editor Bill Marimow and Daily News editor Michael Days have identified as the core functions of their newspapers. The editor may skip over those classes of reporters as he works up the layoff list. He must, however, allow anyone in danger of being laid off and who has held any of those beats for a year to bump less senior employees.
Posted by steve at 06:16 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 12, 2006
Raw Deal?
The Inquirer has now posted a story about the tentative agreement, which doesn't make it sound like they'll be celebrating this pact in the newsroom.
We're also interested in a detail that dribbles out at the end: "The Inquirer newsroom is bracing for the possible layoff of up to 20 percent of its approximately 410 reporters, editors and support staff."
Managing editor Anne Gordon had earlier told PW, among others, that the editorial department had been asked to plan for "up to 150 layoffs," which is considerably more than 20 percent.
Publisher and co-owner of the newspapers Brian P. Tierney said the number of layoffs would be something less than 150, depending on what kind of concessions they could get out of contract negotiations with the Guild. So is 20 percent of 410—in other words, 82—the new 150?
We'll just have to wait and see.
Posted by steve at 11:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Deal!
Straight from the Guild: A strike has been averted. This blog has almost reached its end.
Keep in mind, however, that the deal isn't really done until the Guild membership ratifies it with their vote.
TENTATIVE AGREEMENT REACHED AT 10:15 P.M.
Newspaper Guild and company negotiators reached a tentative agreement, ending a bargaining session at about 10:15 p.m. tonight.
Posted by steve at 11:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Into the Night
Guild spokesman Stu Bykofsky says union reps are due to meet with management again at 7 p.m.
“They are going to go in there and try to get a deal,” says Bykofsky.
Posted by steve at 06:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Management Responds...
The language is starting to get awfully complicated, but the way we understand it Philadelphia Media Holdings has supplied the Guild with a modified proposal in response to the union's counter proposal.
The upshot is that this thing is still going on and figures to be for some time yet. The Guild's negotiating team is currently holed up at the Union hall, figuring out how they're going to respond to management's latest offering.
"I have to think this is going to be settled, one way or another, this week," says Guild spokesman Stu Bykofsky, who supplied all of the above information.
Translation: they'll either strike or reach a tentative agreement on a deal. Or not. This negotiation has a life of its own.
The pension has been the sole remaining strike-worthy issue for negotiators since the fourth of December.
Posted by steve at 03:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
More to Say...
A source involved in the talks says that management is meeting with the Guild again today. And soon.
When the day began, there was no guarantee the two sides would speak directly, so this would seem to represent progress of a kind.
Posted by steve at 01:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Tuesday's Grab Bag—and the Voice of the Voiceless
No word yet on what became of the mediator's scheduled 11 a.m. conversation with Philadelphia Media Holdings. In the meantime, the Inquirer's Joseph DiStefano summarized what's happening with all the "other" unions at the Inquirer and Daily News.
Also, we just received one of our all-time favorite things: an anonymous letter. This one is from someone with the moniker "The voice of the voiceless". We've edited for length and to remove the names of the people the writer mentions, but here it comes—the thoughts of a Guild member upset with his or her union.
Read it after the jump.
The newspaper guild is quibbling with Philadelphia Newspapers over a pension that means little to any employee at the Philadelphia Inquirer with fewer than 10 years of service—because these are the people who likely will be out of a job if the Guild gets its way. What will be the true cost to the Inquirer if layoffs are based primarily on seniority? Here are some random thoughts from someone speaking up for those whose voice has been silenced in this process—the people most vulnerable to being laid off.
The staff is bloated from years of hiring people to offset the lack of productivity by many longtime staff members: reporters who write a significant story every few months; photographers whose daily shift includes one assignment. Many people in this situation are the longtime staffers whose jobs will be saved by seniority, and those being laid off will be the newer staffers who have been much more productive.
Publisher Brian Tierney has spoken of the importance of diversity to the Inquirer. If seniority determines who is laid off, how many minority reporters, editors and photographers will get to keep their jobs? The answer is very few. How many minority journalists was the Inquirer hiring 25 years ago? In effect seniority protects the white establishment.
The company talks about the need to cut costs. What about the people who have moved from high-paying management jobs to lower-level jobs but kept their salary?
The lack of productivity among longtime staffers and their unwillingness to work during the holiday season has resulted in at least two former staffers who took a buyout last year being hired on a contract basis to work on the city desk and the national/foreign desk, respectively.
The Guild likes to trumpet solidarity, and how there were just four dissenters when a strike vote was taken in November. But it was a voice vote with members given 24 hours notice. And it was held at a downtown Philadelphia church at 6 p.m. on a weekday—the height of deadline and traffic congestion.
Perhaps this information will give pause to those who will decide the course of innocent peoples’ lives.
Sincerely,
The voice of the voiceless at the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Posted by steve at 11:59 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
The Nuclear Weapon (and more on replacement workers)
Just got some more details on last night's events from Guild spokesman Stu Bykofsky.
"There was an exchange of proposals and modifications," says Bykofsky. "The federal mediator is going to talk to [management] at 11 a.m. and our negotiating team will be over at the Guild's headquarters, waiting for a call they hope will come for another meeting."
Bykofsky says talk that the union is demonstrating an unwillingness to strike is inaccurate. "The strike is the nuclear weapon," says Bykofsky. "If you use the nuclear weapon, everybody gets radiation burns. We've said all along it would be the last resort and we haven't gotten there. If you're in talks for 13 hours, and there's some progress, even if it's measured in millimeters, you probably shouldn't call a strike."
Management's ability to withstand a strike could be sorely compromised. Philadelphia Media Holdings CEO and Publisher Brian P. Tierney is already talking about an unspecified number of layoffs from the Inquirer newsroom, no matter how much he receives in contract concessions from the union.
Since purchasing the paper last spring, national advertising dropped industry wide, leading Tierney to write his staff a two-page letter outlining the company's financial plight, which he said was so severe that without serious cost cutting the company might not be able to make its debt payments.
Whether or not the company has strike insurance—there is such a thing—is one of the many questions company spokesman Jay Devine hasn't answered despite repeated phone calls.
On the other hand, a strike is not something union members can take lightly either. A November 30 memo from the Guild to its members laid out their own stark financial situation: On the eighth day of a strike, members would receive a check for $150; on the fifteenth day, a check for $200; on the 29th a check for $300, to be followed by another such check every week until the strike ends.
That's just enough for Guild members to purchase towels they can cry in.
There is also the possibility that a strike could lead to a bigger war. Tierney has stated he has no intention of hiring replacement workers.
Tierney's spokesman Jay Devine hasn't returned more than a half-dozen phone messages or e-mails requesting comment on an ad for temporary editorial workers that ran on careerbuilder.com. An operator handling calls about that ad for a company called Strom Engineering said they were looking for temporary editorial employees to cross a picket line on the East Coast in late December. Strom Engineering specializes in hiring strike replacement workers. They would not reveal the name of the newspaper company for whom they are hiring.
As of today, another call revealed they are still taking applications.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is currently involved in highly contentious labor negotiations. Their contract is set to expire December 31. Here in Philadelphia, a series of contract extensions were signed after that point was reached. Pittsburgh's Guild President Mike Bucsko isn't concerned about the ad. "I don't think it's related to us," says Bucsko, "because of the way [the ad] is worded and the way things are proceeding here."
Posted by steve at 09:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Talk is Cheap
Yesterday's marathon session yielded no tangible result. Here's the Guild's statement:
ALL TALK, VERY LITTLE MOVEMENT
Negotiations between The Newspaper Guild and the company broke off at 12:45 a.m., with the Guild waiting for a company response to its latest modified proposal on the pension issue.
Guild negotiators worked diligently for some 14 hours.
No meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, but the federal mediator is to talk with company negotiator Rob Barron at 11 a.m., after which a session may be called. Guild negotiators will be standing by, as usual, ready to meet with the company.
Posted by steve at 07:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 11, 2006
Guild Schedules Membership Meeting
The Newspaper Guild has just scheduled a meeting for this Wednesday evening, which Guild spokesman Stu Bykofsky says will be a "purely informational" session, meaning it's purpose is not to a.) vote on a strike or b.) vote on a deal.
The union's membership already voted several weeks back, giving union leaders the authority to declare a strike.
Second, according to Bykofsky, unions by-laws require that members receive 72 hours notice before being asked to vote on a contract.
"This is something we started talking about last week," says Bykofsky, "to inform our members, but it took us this long to find a hall that could accommodate our entire membership."
Bykofsky had no further information on any progres the two sides are making tonight.
The meeting announcement follows after the jump:
PLEASE POST GUILD PLEASE POST
MEMBERSHIP MEETING
7 P.M. Wednesday, December 13th
CONGREGATION RODEPH SHALOM SYNAGOGUE
615 N. Broad Street
Parking available
The meeting is to update you on the progress of contract negotiations.
Questions and concerns: Please write to voices@local-10.com
Posted by steve at 10:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
"We're not close"
Just caught up with Guild spokesman Stu Bykofsky, who said that he hasn't had much chance to speak with Guild President Henry Holcomb today. At this point talks have been going on for 10 hours, though most of that has evidently been spent reviewing proposals.
Some time late this afternoon, says Bykosky, he spoke to Holcomb briefly and the Guild President told him "We're not close." Bykofsky rightly cautions those three words might not mean very much. Several hours have passed since then and the two sides are still communicating.
Posted by steve at 09:28 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Have a Seat, This Will Take a While...
Guild reps are currently expecting a long night, which—reading the tea leaves a little bit—looks like a good sign. At the very least, it appears management is taking the Guild's counter proposal seriously.
Posted by steve at 05:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Mulling it Over...
As of 3:30 p.m., says Guild spokesman Stu Bykofsky, management was still trying to formulate a response to the Guild's counter proposal on the pension fund.
That may very well be a good sign that management is taking the Guild's proposal seriously enough to make a counter offer of their own.
I can't believe I'm writing this, but here goes: We're told the union's negotiating team got takeout chicken wings and chicken fingers from—where else?—Mr. Chicken, a nearby restaurant, for lunch.
Posted by steve at 04:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
"It's nerve wracking"
Just spoke to Stephan Salisbury, who echoes most of what we're hearing from the newsroom. "No one wants a strike," he says. "And that's across the board in this newsroom. But the pension issue has really galvanized the members, so that we are willing to support a strike if it comes to that."
Salisbury also said that sitting around waiting for answers is as difficult as it sounds. "They're talking, and as long as they're talking there's reason for optimism," he says. "But the wait—it's nerve wracking. There's no question about it."
The rest of what we're hearing is that a lot of younger staffers would rather not strike over the pension fund, but if their leadership calls for a strike they'll honor it.
Posted by steve at 12:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Moving Fast...
Just received a call from Guild spokesman Stu Bykofsky. As of 11 a.m., the Guild has already finished presenting its counter offer to the company's pension proposal.
Management is now caucusing to decide what it's response will be.
Posted by steve at 10:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
At the Table...
No report yet on precisely what time they got started today, but as of 10:50 a.m. the two sides are talking.
Anything could happen now.
Posted by steve at 10:42 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
D-Day?
The media landscape is far more crowded than it was 30 years ago.
CLEAVING TO THE PAST?
The Newspaper Guild and Philadelphia Media Holdings representatives will sit down again today to address the final remaining issue in their protracted contract negotiations: the pension.
The two sides reached an impasse on the subject last week, almost provoking the Guild representing nearly 1,000 of the company’s 2,600 employees to go on strike. After an appeal from the federal mediator aiding the talks, the two sides have agreed to meet again today at 10:00 a.m., continuing a negotiation that may, in some respects, symbolize the last stand of print as American journalism’s dominant form.
It is a battle that is taking place perhaps five to 10 years after the war was already decided, long after cable television and the Internet began eroding print’s audience and advertising base.
The Inquirer and Daily News won what staff members acknowledge to be an advantageous deal in the 1970s. Back then, in the post-Watergate era of ambitious journalism, money flowed freely—particularly at the Inquirer, where long and expensive narratives covering such non-local topics as life aboard an aircraft carrier and dispatches from Lebanon, Sarajevo, Angola, Cambodia, Afghanistan and East Timor were supported and encouraged.
Salaries and benefit perks—including a generous pension check—increased along with the expense budget. But today, in an increasingly crowded and fragmented media landscape, it seems unlikely that any daily newspaper outside the media epicenters of Washington or New York will pursue such national and international stories. Salaries, too, are trending downward. And generous pension funds seem almost entirely absent from American business—let alone newspapers.
Last week, Brian Tierney, the Philadelphia papers’ publisher and CEO, issued a two-page memo to his employees, declaring the days that produced the current pension plan a “bygone era.”
He’s right. Throughout the nation, print reporters are far more likely to get laid off than get a raise. They are also increasingly being asked to develop new skill sets, like writing for the web or podcasting, and at no extra pay.
The image of Tierney as a process server, trying to deliver paperwork to Inquirer and Daily News staffers that they don’t want to read, is impossible to avoid. It is also probably the image Tierney would most like to project. But after interviewing pension experts, something else becomes clear:
Symbolism aside, this is a fight typical of management and labor—and though pension funds and pension law are both incredibly complicated, heartbreak and low bank balances are not.
WHAT’S AT STAKE?
Philadelphia Media Holdings is seeking to freeze the current defined-benefit plan, which calls for the company to contribute a little more than six percent of each employee’s salary to the fund.
The freeze would save management about $4 million per year.
The Guild says this would cause its members, particularly those closer to retirement, a lot of pain.
According to an analysis Inquirer business writer Jeff Brown conducted for the Guild, “the $75,000-a-year employee who worked for 20 years prior to the freeze would get a pension of $24,000 a year. If he or she worked an additional 10 years after the freeze, the pension would still be $24,000. Without a freeze, it would be $36,000.”
It’s that financial whack the Guild is trying to avoid, particularly on behalf of its older employees.
“What’s happening there is happening or has happened everywhere,” says Lynn Dudley, vice president for retirement policy at the American Benefits Council, which advocates employer-sponsored benefit programs in Washington, D.C.. “I’m talking about the move from a defined-benefit plan to a contribution plan. I wish it would trend back the other way.”
Dudley says that private industry’s embrace of the 401K was in part dictated to them.
“Before [anyone] jumps to the conclusion that [business] is evil,” she says, “you need to understand they are responding to their competition and to the government, which isn’t encouraging these kinds of plans anymore. The government gives incentives for defined-contribution plans—and they tightened the funding on defined-benefit plans, so the incentive to have them is less than it was.”
The 401K program that Inquirer and DN staffers would be left with is certainly far less lucrative for employees. And according to the Guild, management’s most recent proposal doesn’t offer employees any matching funds for their contributions.
Plus, there is another issue, and that is who controls the pension fund.
WHO’S IN CHARGE?
Currently, three union and three management representatives sit on the pension board, giving the Guild an equal say in anything that happens to the money. Management has asked for full control of the fund.
This, too, is not unusual. “The legal obligation to pay the plan falls on the employer,” says Steven Sass, Associate Director for Research, at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. “So the employer bears the risk, and that’s why they want to control the assets. That’s common.”
All the experts we spoke to agreed that fears the company might somehow use the fund for some purpose other than its employees’ retirements are unfounded. The laws and oversight are just too stringent to permit it.
Both Dudley and Sass also say employer-administered funds tend to perform better. “Outside the Inquirer’s single-employer plan universe, they have a one-percent better rate of return than employee-administrated plans,” says Sass.
In his recent memo, Tierney said they wanted control of the fund to maximize returns. Because Philadelphia Media Holdings is on the hook to pay the benefits, they want to make sure the money is there to do exactly that.
The Guild says the current system works just fine. “For the year ended Sept. 30, the return was 7.68 percent—just shy of the 8 percent in the plan's long-term projections,” reads a recent Guild memo. “For the two years ending Sept 30 the fund returned 8.8 percent a year. For the past four years it averaged 11.19 percent a year.”
Another expert at Boston College’s Center for Retirement Research says he understands why the union would be loathe to give up its voice.
“I would want to continue with the same representation I had before,” says Francis M. Vitagliano, Director of Retirement Education and Visiting Scholar. “This is the equivalent of a marriage, and there are changes afoot. You wouldn’t want to give complete control of your bank account to your wife or husband. You’d want equal representation. ‘How are we going to spend our money?’ They each have three representatives right now—that is a reasonable and straight forward approach.”
The Guild also notes that crucial decisions loom ahead. “Additionally, [management] wants the SOLE AUTHORITY to decide at the end of 2007 whether the Guild Pension Fund should be TERMINATED and/or MERGED with a multi-employer pension fund,” reads a recent union letter.
This impasse won't be easily overcome.
Imagine, for a moment, being Guild President Henry Holcomb. How do you look a dues-paying member in the eye and tell them the retirement they thought they had coming in 10 years or so is gone—and that what they’re left with is a far leaner, harder life?
Imagine being Tierney or any of his other investors, assuming hundreds of millions of dollars in debt to acquire two properties that are earning far less revenue with every passing year. Such huge debt is what drives men to squeeze every nickel until it screams. And the recent drop in national advertising, which hit the entire industry, is forcing their hand.
These two sides are meeting again today. But there’s no guarantee they will really do all that much talking when they see each other, face to face.
Posted by steve at 08:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 08, 2006
Bykofsky Takes a Breather
The news figures to be dribbling rather than shooting out of 400 N. Broad St. over the next couple of days.
Monday, when the union and management get back together again, promises to be the most important day of the talks thus far.
Management is currently proposing to freeze the current pension plan and take over sole administration of the fund. The union, in turn, claims freezing the fund will have a devastating impact on its members. They also want to maintain their current say in what happens with the money and how it's invested.
Management is in a difficult spot, buying the Inquirer and Daily News just before the bottom dropped out of the national advertising market. They are seeking to get whatever savings they can out of current conract negotiations, which Publisher Brian P. Tierney has also said would reduce the number of newsroom layoffs they will seek after negotiations end.
Managing editor Anne Gordon has said the Inquirer has been asked to plan for "up to 150 layoffs." That's a big number of potential losses, comprising more than a third of the paper's 410 staffers if the worst-case scenario comes to pass. But before we even get to that drama the two sides have to come to some kind of contract agreement.
To tide us over, here is what might be the last message from Guild spokesman Stu Bykofsky for a couple of days. As ever—it comes after the jump:
FYI
The Newspaper Guild negotiating committee is meeting today (Friday) and over the weekend to formulate, at the federal mediator's request, a response to the company on the issue of the pension.
Please note there are two issues involved here. It is not merely the company's desire to freeze the pension, as most of you report. It is also the issue of the company's desire to take over sole administration and direction of the pension, which currently is jointly administered by three union representatives, three company representatives and one impartial chair. It is a carefully constructed and balanced system that has worked very well for everyone.
Your reporting, whenever possible, should mention both issues.
In his open letter yesterday, Brian Tierney said a change in the pension would "perhaps" cost "everyone a little more." There is no "perhaps." The freeze (meaning no more company contributions) would definitely cost members a great deal more.
In explaining why he felt the company should solely direct the fund, he wrote, "The Guild has no incentive to maximize returns since we must fund any shortfalls."
That is nonsense. The Guild's "incentive" is that our members benefit from a strong, healthy, wisely- and safely-invested fund.
-- Stu Bykofsky
Posted by steve at 11:54 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A Glimmer of Hope?
Judging by the latest Guild memo it now seems the earliest we'll see a strike—if at all—is later in the day on Monday.
The federal mediator, who was called in by the Guild what seems like eons ago, wants to put the two sides back at the table and talking again on Monday. The Guild's planning on creating a counter-proposal to management's pension demands over the weekend.
Is this the Guild blinking?
If they can get a deal without all the drama, stress and risk of walking off the job, backing away from a strike will just look smart.
An incredibly short guild memo follows the jump:
HANG IN THERE
Dec. 7, 2006
Federal Mediator Walter Bednarczyk said today that he would call back the Guild and the Company to face-to-face bargaining Monday to discuss pension issues.
He strongly suggested that neither party take any action at this time.
The Company wants to freeze the pension fund and take full control of our fund away from the joint board of trustees.
The union plans to work with its experts through the weekend to come up with a counter proposal.
Posted by steve at 01:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 07, 2006
Tierney Weighs In
Philadelphia Media Holdings publisher Brian P. Tierney just released a two-page memo outlining his position.
Read it here:
December 7, 2006
To: PN Employees
From: Brian Tierney
An Open Letter to Employees:
At the very beginning of negotiations with our unions, I said that I would
treat our discussions with confidentiality and respect, and not negotiate in public.
However, with all the rhetoric going around, I feel we must separate some facts from
fiction. Let me highlight a few examples.
We are not proposing to take away anyone's pension benefit. The Pension Fund
is federally guaranteed. We are only proposing to no longer make additional
commitments to the Fund. Those employees with many years of service have
already earned and vested their pension benefit. The benefit you have will still be
paid to you upon your retirement. Employees with many years ahead of them before
retirement will have plenty of time to plan for their own retirement with a variety of
tax-advantaged plans, for example a 401(k). Everyone's existing pension is fully protected
by law. It is illegal, immoral, and repugnant to take any actions that would threaten the
security and integrity of the Pension Fund.
We are offended by suggestions that our proposal to manage the Fund has the
ulterior motive of "raiding the fund" or stealing its capital. Our investors, including another
union's pension fund, are highly visible and respected members of the Philadelphia
community.
We are saddened by the rumor-mongering that has spread fears
among the Guild rank and file. Our proposal to manage the Fund has a simple motive; we
want to maximize the investment returns of the Fund because we are fully responsible
for its funding level. We are legally bound to insure the full funding of the Fund,
and recent Federal legislation has only strengthened the legal framework of such
funding requirements.
Since we are on the hook for the unfunded liability, we want the decision making authority to maximize the investment returns of the Fund. The Guild has no incentive to maximize returns since we must fund any shortfalls. We have also proposed to allow the membership to accrue additional pension
benefits in the legacy Fund. This would involve merging the Guild's pension into a
multi-employer plan that will allow the Guild to increase future benefits. We have already
begun looking for merger partners in order to speed this process along.
PN Employees
Page 2
If the fund remains independent, our management of the Fund will be
completely transparent; all investment and administration decisions, as well as the
Fund's performance, will be shared with Guild leadership.
What we are proposing is in line with most other companies, both in the
media business and other businesses. Ask your friends and neighbors what their companies
are doing.
Remember, you will continue to be guaranteed your legacy pension benefit,
the "severance" pension we already fund, and your current 401(k) plan. And, if
we find a merger partner, the Guild could fund additional benefits to the legacy
pension.
Will this proposal cost everyone a little more? Perhaps. But it is
critically important for everyone to understand how difficult the newspaper business has become. You
can look all over the country for examples. We simply can no longer afford the very
generous pay and benefits of a bygone era, when newspapers dominated the media. We would
much prefer for everyone to share a little bit in the pain, so that we can spare
perhaps dozens of our colleagues from losing their jobs altogether.
There is a silver lining in this cloud. If we can break the downward spiral
of this business, if we can save dozens of newsroom jobs, if we can improve the
quality of our newspapers, if we can invest in marketing and product and equipment and
technology, if we can grow circulation and thereby grow advertising, we can, in fact, win,
and win big, together as a team. And that's my dream. I want these newspapers to be
great, and I'm sorry that we must take such painful steps to achieve greatness. But to
those of you who understand this vision and understand the need for these difficult
decisions, you will understand that it is our only choice.
I am fundamentally optimistic. I want to break the cycles of negative
thinking, of "us vs. them." We are all in this together, and need to keep the best interests of
this fine journalistic institution in the front of our minds. I want this organization to still be
around, to still employ thousands of people, to still make a difference in
our community, and to still be relevant for decades and decades to come.
Let's work together to make this happen.
Posted by steve at 04:44 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Not Looking Too Good
The Guild's released another bulletin on the state of negotiations with, as you might expect, a heavy emphasis on the pension fund.
The statement comes after the jump:
Would you give a company that’s $350 million in debt,
control of your pension fund?
The Newspaper Guild Pension Fund has served our members faithfully under the control of a Joint Trustee Board (comprised of Guild members and Company representatives) for more than 40 years. Rare among pension funds of its kind, it is almost fully funded under new Federal government guidelines – and the fund liability that the Company is forced by law to pay was included in the purchase price of the Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Daily News from Knight Ridder.
But now our new owners want to stop contributing to the fund. Even worse, they seek to dissolve the Joint Trustee Board that has worked so effectively for four decades and decide by themselves where the pension fund money will be invested.
The Guild Bargaining Committee has discussed numerous alternatives with the Company about how it might save money on its pension fund contributions going forward, including a possible wage diversion, but the Company wouldn’t even give the Guild Bargaining Committee its wage proposal – until we agreed to their pension demands. Their message has been loud and clear: The Company wants to FREEZE its contributions to the Guild Pension Fund and it wants to do it NOW.
Additionally, it wants the SOLE AUTHORITY to decide at the end of 2007 whether the Guild Pension Fund should be TERMINATED and/or MERGED with a multi-employer pension fund.
The Guild Bargaining Committee can not support this action. We are more than willing to allow the Joint Trustee Board to explore a merger into a multi-employer pension fund but that process must follow the same process it always has. If there’s a deadlock it goes to arbitration, not to publisher Brian Tierney.
If our members and retirees want to gamble with their pension they can visit Tierney’s casino. But we can not give up control of their retirement money – money earned through years of collective bargaining in place of raises – to an employer with such a brief history and such heavy debt. This is not to imply that our new owners will raid our pension fund to line their pockets – that’s illegal – but it gives them the opportunity to act in their own best interests and not ours – with our money.
Throughout the last few months of negotiations, the Guild Bargaining Committee has heeded Brian Tierney’s call to step up. We agreed to the Company’s proposal to drastically change our sick time policy because it would save over $1 million. Tierney repeatedly requested flexibility in the advertising department and we moved on that issue. He said he needed to be able to hire lower-paid workers to compete in an ever-changing journalism landscape and we moved there. When his top editors requested flexibility in their newsrooms, we moved on that issue because we want Bill Marimow and Michael Days to have the tools they think they need to succeed in their missions. Everywhere the Company has asked for help, we gave them help. We want these papers to survive and thrive.
But we’re not giving them our pensions.
Posted by steve at 02:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
An Amanda Sighting
Word from New York is that former Inquirer editor Amanda Bennett was sighted in the offices of the Bloomberg news service.
Maybe she's better off not being in Philadelphia.
Posted by steve at 02:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
What We're Hearing
Today looks like a day of strategizing for the Newspaper Guild, as it prepares for the possibility of a strike.
Previous talk of a strike representing a kind of "nuclear option"—bad for both sides—seems to be fading from the rhetoric of Guild Members now, a shift that may signal just how serious they are about walking off the job.
Posted by steve at 09:08 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
December 06, 2006
What Now?
The threat of a strike at the Inquirer and Daily News has grown incredibly real, due to a dispute over the pension fund.
If a strike's going to be called, it seems most likely that the Guild would seek to disrupt publication of the Sunday paper. In terms of the production schedule, that would mean the company may still have tomorrow to bargain.
Guild spokesman Stu Bykofsky says there are no further talks scheduled.
From talking to various sources familiar with the paper's production process, the Guild could throw a monkey wrench into the lucrative Sunday paper by officially declaring a strike as late as Friday.
Posted by steve at 09:06 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Strike Gets Near
"I am distressed to learn that on this point the company is stuck on stupid," says Stu Bykofky.
Here come the specifics—and they're bad: The Guild and management couldn't get together on the pension fund today.
The details come after the jump.
Bad Situation
Dec. 6, 2006
Today, the Company refused to move on its plan to freeze the pension fund. It wouldn’t budge on its desire to take full control of our fund away from the joint board of trustees.
The Company wants all that power as it, and it alone, seeks a multi-employer plan in which to place the frozen fund.
The Guild negotiating team told the Company it would go into a multi-employer pension fund, but it would not relinquish its place in the decision making process.
Under the Guild plan, the pension trustees – composed of an equal number of representatives from the Company and the union – would seek a suitable multi-employer pension fund to merge into. If the sides could not agree on a fund, they would go into arbitration.
It is essential for both sides to be involved, to keep the process moving quickly and to protect OUR RETIREMENT SAVINGS.
“This is a damn sad situation,” said Guild President Henry J. Holcomb. “The Company’s position threatens to undo all of the good work we have done and put us on strike.”
The Company also refused to make a wage proposal, even though it settled with the other unions last night.
With that information, the Guild could possibly craft a solution to the Company’s problem.
Because this is the most serious of our strike issues, members should please take home their personal items from work and await instructions on other actions.
Next Unread Reply
Posted by steve at 08:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Take a Deep Breath...
According to Guild spokesman Stu Bykofsky, management showed up around about 12:30 p.m. and started talks.
There is no word yet on how it's going, but they are at the table.
Posted by steve at 04:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Pension Talks Set to Begin...
Just got word from someone involved in the talks. Pension discussions were set to begin today at noon. As of 12:33 p.m., the union was present and ready to go. Management hadn't shown up yet.
Posted by steve at 12:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 05, 2006
The Pensions Are Next
The Newspaper Guild's current pension plan, which calls for owners to contribute 6 percent of each member's salary to a fund, is a bit antiquated in the age of the 401K. But the Guild has made it clear that pensions are an issue for which they remain prepared to call a strike.
Talks are scheduled to resume on Wednesday, with pensions looming as the key issue. So for anyone out there trying to understand the union's position on pensions, here's a primer—straight from the Guild.
Check it out after the jump:
UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT OF A PENSION FREEZE
The remaining major obstacle to reaching an agreement with the company is the pension issue, which will be the focus of negotiations scheduled to take place Wednesday, if not sooner.
The following primer was prepared by Guild Member Jeff Brown, the Inquirer's Personal Finance Columnist.
Philadelphia Newspapers wants to freeze the Guild pension and take over the fund. Here is an explanation of the pension and the effect of a freeze.
How the current pension works
Guild pensions are calculated by multiplying three factors: years with the company, an average of annual salary for the five highest-paid years, a “multiplier” of 1.6 percent.
An employee with 20 years at the company earning $50,000 at retirement would get an annual pension of $16,000. The calculation is: 20 x $50,000 x 0.016 = $16,000.
How a freeze would reduce the pension
A freeze would reduce two of the three factors in the formula - the number of years and the salary.
After the freeze, the formula would use the employee’s years with the company up to the date of the freeze. If he or she continued to work for the papers, the additional years would not count. The formula would use the employee’s salary at the time of the freeze, ignoring any raises received afterward.
For example, imagine that the employee described above stayed with the company for 30 years and earned $65,000 upon retiring 10 years after the pension was frozen. Because of the freeze, this employee would receive an annual pension of $16,000. Without a freeze, the pension would be $31,200.
How would the company offset this loss?
It would not. Guild members would continue to have a 401(k) plan which has been in place for many years. But the company has never contributed to this plan and has not offered to do so even after a pension freeze. The only contribution to Guild members’ 401(k)s comes from their own contributions. There is no company match.
The pension fund takeover
Currently, the Guild pension fund is overseen by a six-member board of trustees, with three members from the company, three from the Guild. The fund is in good health. The company wants complete control of this fund. Guild members fear that the company, which claims it is in financial trouble, would use the fund for its own benefit rather than the employees’. We don’t want Philadelphia Newspapers to become the next Enron.
The Newspaper Guild offers the above to help understand the gravity of the company's proposal, which would cripple the future financial security of Guild members.
Many of you remember when companies used to brag about the pensions they offered employees. Maybe you wonder when "pension" turned into the "P-word," when it passed from a benefit to a manifestation of some kind of outrageous, wicked greed.
Posted by steve at 11:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Catching Up...
So there was no meeting with the Newspaper Guild yesterday, as management focused in on deals with the other unions at the Inquirer and Daily News.
The first expected meeting between the two sides is Wednesday.
In the interest of completeness, here's the Guild's latest memo:
THE ENDGAME BEGINS
Dec. 4, 2006
We are awaiting the call of the federal mediator to bargain on the remaining critical economic issues including wages and our pension program. As we reported earlier today, we have reached a tentative agreement on many issues.
If we reach a tentative agreement on all issues, you will be asked to vote on it. But before any vote to ratify is held, your bargaining committee will explain in detail the proposal. The Guild by-laws require a three-day notice for a ratification meeting. Voting will be done by secret ballot.
If we do not reach an agreement, we are ready to strike.
The overwhelming majority of you signed up for picketing and have received your shifts.
More than 200 people have volunteered to work on the Guild’s strike Web site, which is designed and staffed to set a new high standard for new media. If you haven’t volunteered and would like to, please get in touch with Tom Ferrick or Bob Warner. Take a look at the page: www.Philapapers.com. It can be up and running within two hours of the strike call.
In the meantime, please bear with us. We must focus our energy and attention on finishing the negotiations.
Your bargaining committee is working hard to get a deal. Thank you for your support!
Posted by steve at 10:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 04, 2006
Guild's Official Statement
TENTATIVE AGREEMENT ON ON-ECONOMIC ISSUES, AFTER ALL-DAY SESSION
The Newspaper Guild negotiators reached a tentative agreement with the company on non-economic issues, after a day-long bargaining session that ended about 12:45 a.m. The session started at 12:45 p.m. Sunday.
Local President Henry J. Holcomb said critical economic issues, including the pension, remain on the table.
The company indicated it may not be able to meet with the Guild until Wednesday because it has to meet with other unions. Holcomb said he will press to meet with the company earlier.
There is an agreement on the key seniority issue, which "basically preserves" seniority, said Holcomb, adding that he plans to call a membership meeting to explain some of the details.
"The pension issue has not yet been discussed," he said, adding that health and welfare payments have yet to be explored. During Sunday's sessions, Daily News Editor Michael Days and Inquirer Editor Bill Marimow joined the talks for several periods.
Union leadership will meet Monday to evaluate the agreement so far and to plan for the next session.
Posted by steve at 01:11 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Seniority Settled
The Newspaper Guild and management made a lot of progress today, in talks that ended after midnight.
They came to an agreement on the issue of seniority, leaving them with one major issue—the pension—still on the table. No details on the seniority agreement were immediately available.
The Newspaper Guild may not meet with management again until Wednesday, because talks with the other unions need to resume tomorrow.
Says Stu Bykofsky, with what from here reads like supreme understatement: "The union is heartened by this progress and we look forward to perhaps wrapping this entire contract up within the next few days."
Posted by steve at 12:49 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 03, 2006
Energizer Bunnies, They Are...
According to Stu Bykofsky, as of 7:49 p.m. they were still talking.
He hasn't heard anything since, and he says he still doesn't know if they've actually touched upon the third-rail issues of the pension fund and seniority, which have caused the most controversy thus far.
Posted by steve at 08:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
And Still Going...
Just got word from the negotiations. As of 5:30 p.m., the two sides are still talking and figure to be at it "for a while."
For those that may have missed it, this is a very important Sunday for everyone concerned.
Philadelphia Media Holdings CEO and publisher Brian P. Tierney is seeking concessions from the union on seniority and the pension fund. Tierney issued a memo earlier this fall declaring that the new owners bought the Inquirer and Daily News just before the bottom dropped out of the national advertising market—a development no one in the industry foresaw.
The union has declared their willingness to strike rather than make those concessions. They say they are willing to allow management a little more leeway in terms of choosing who to layoff (up to 150 layoffs are coming in the Inquirer newsroom), but apparently not as much freedom as management is seeking.
The union also says management's proposal to freeze the current plan would create tremendous hardship for their members, particularly those within 10 years of retirement. Management has been asking for control of the $187 million fund, but the union wants to maintain their current say in how the money is administered.
Though the two sides have discussed these critical issues throughout the process, this last weekend of lengthy discussions has evidently revolve