Boston Globe rejects cuts

[LongTimeListener]

My pay cut just kicked in; you don't have to tell me. My first post on this thread was taking issue with the assessment that the Globe folks were "already low-paid." That's why I think the central issue is not the pay cut but the loss of lifetime guarantees -- an issue that just isn't going to gain a lot of traction on the outside, even among supporters.

 

[JimmyHoward33]

First Herald article linked on this page says, "Veteran Globe reporters who make $72,133 a year now stand to lose $16,590 in annual pay with the 23 percent pay cut."

 

[I Digress]

Any guild members with their newsletter around? It used to publish pay scales for all the union papers.

 

[mustangj17]

First Herald article linked on this page says, "Veteran Globe reporters who make $72,133 a year now stand to lose $16,590 in annual pay with the 23 percent pay cut."

Those veteran reporters could have 2-3 kids. That's a lot of money to lose.

 

[cluelesswonder]

if you are a one-income household trying to live anywhere inside 495, even anywhere east of worcester, you're screwed if you're making $55k. this also presumes you have the standard debt level our society subscribes to: house, car, college loans. cut one or two of those out of the equation and you might be able to live in a non-cardboard box and save for retirement, provided you don't have kids.

 

[LongTimeListener]

That $72K number refers to top scale, or the veteran minimum. Merit pay and raises are negotiated above that point, and that is very very very commonplace, or at least was five to 10 to 20 years ago. I'll wait for someone to provide hard information to the contrary, but hearing that number makes me more comfortable than ever with my initial estimate that almost everyone at the veteran minimum is making at least $80K.

Yeah, a 23 percent pay cut sucks from that. But remember, Globe staffers had the choice to take an 8.4 percent pay cut, which is pretty standard around the country, and in exchange for giving up the lifetime guarantees, they would get A) job guarantees into 2010; and B) the standard severance plus $33,000. That was not a bad deal. The union leadership and nearly 50 percent of the voting membership thought it was palatable enough.

There are far greater sympathy cases around the country than the plight of the Boston Globe worker.

 

[BTExpress]

23 percent pay cut also means massive cut in income/FICA taxes owed.

Just as someone who makes $75K doesn't really see $75K, someone whose salary is cut $16K really does not see a $16K drop.

Just sayin'.

 

[bob]

This doesn't include the Globe, but they would be near the top:
http://www.newsguild.org/scales/view4.inc.php


News Organization: Eff. Date: Scale: Exp: Notes:


New York Times 2009-03-31 $1742.97 2
Chicago Sun-Times 2009-09-27 $1394.8 5
Denver Post 2009-03-15 $1292 6
Providence Journal 2009-01-01 $1245 5
San Francisco Chronicle 2009-01-01 $1237.23 6
Red Deer Advocate 2009-03-01 $1109.88 5
Manchester Union Leader/New Hampshire News 2009-01-01 $1106.82 3
Santa Rosa Press Democrat 2009-12-27 $1103.78 6
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 2009-01-01 $1100.83 5
Moncton Times-Transcript 2009-10-01 $1085.25 2
Portland Press Herald 2009-06-01 $1084.76 5
Waukegan News-Sun 2009-03-01 $1064.16 5
Peoria Journal Star 2009-06-14 $1052.04 5
Joliet Herald-News 2009-07-01 $1049.94 4
Sacramento Bee 2009-01-01 $956.25 6
Cape Breton Post-Front Office 2009-08-01 $940.53 6
Cape Breton Post-Front Office 2009-02-01 $928.92 6
Detroit Observer & Eccentric 2009-11-16 $909.15 5
Independent Newspapers, Michigan 2009-07-01 $899.46 5
Fall River Herald-News 2009-01-01 $820.9 5
Medicine Hat News 2009-03-21 $721.86 5
Lexington Herald-Leader Daily 2009-12-31 $675 5
Wilkes-Barre Citizens' Voice 2009-01-01 $616.94 4
Toledo Blade 2009-05-01 $0 4

________________________________________________________________________________
Footnotes: 1: 40 hour week
2: Plus commissions and bonuses
3: Plus premiums and differentials 4: Commission only
5: Canadian dollars

 

[playthrough]

Remind me not to apply to Toledo.

 

[Joe Williams]

Remind me not to apply to Toledo.

Nicely done.

 

[Joe Williams]

That $72K number refers to top scale, or the veteran minimum. Merit pay and raises are negotiated above that point, and that is very very very commonplace, or at least was five to 10 to 20 years ago. I'll wait for someone to provide hard information to the contrary, but hearing that number makes me more comfortable than ever with my initial estimate that almost everyone at the veteran minimum is making at least $80K.

Yeah, a 23 percent pay cut sucks from that. But remember, Globe staffers had the choice to take an 8.4 percent pay cut, which is pretty standard around the country, and in exchange for giving up the lifetime guarantees, they would get A) job guarantees into 2010; and B) the standard severance plus $33,000. That was not a bad deal. The union leadership and nearly 50 percent of the voting membership thought it was palatable enough.

There are far greater sympathy cases around the country than the plight of the Boston Globe worker.

Yeah, like Tom Glavine [/crossthreading]

 

[Joe Williams]

Yeah, a 23 percent pay cut sucks from that. But remember, Globe staffers had the choice to take an 8.4 percent pay cut, which is pretty standard around the country, and in exchange for giving up the lifetime guarantees, they would get A) job guarantees into 2010; and B) the standard severance plus $33,000. That was not a bad deal. The union leadership and nearly 50 percent of the voting membership thought it was palatable enough.

The only thing as stupid as offering someone a "lifetime job guarantee" is agreeing to such an offer, assuming that it truly will be lived up to. Still, I think the Globe needs to honor that offering to the nth degree, right up to the point of shuttering the joint. It can't throw around alluring things like that and then yank them away when times get tough, not until that is the absolute last resort before collapse. As I said previously, if the Globe goes forward with at least 190 jobs, then the people with the guarantees should have them.

Question: Are those 190 with the "guaranteed" jobs a subset of the Guild membership? Why can't the Times negotiate something palatable just with those 190, in tradeoff for the provision, rather than having people who aren't covered by the guarantees deciding the price at which those folks should lose that protection?

If management wants to buy its way out of the outmoded "guarantees," that's fine. If it wants to turn union member against union member to leverage its way out -- screwing over one group to get at the other -- then it deserves whatever mess it has.