« A Glimmer of Hope? | Main | D-Day? »
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 December 8, 2006 11:54 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3960