Boston Globe rejects cuts

[suburbia]

This is a landmark case. If the NLRB rules against the Guild, or if they lose in court.. then every union paper in the country is free to void their contracts and arbitrarily reduce pay any amount they want.

Wouldn't that then be true for every union in the country, newspaper or otherwise? If management can void contracts and cut pay whenever they want, what's the point of unions?

Of course, as others have posted here, even if the guild wins the case, it could still lose even worse. If the guild wins, what is to stop NY Times Co. from just shutting the place down?

 

[I Digress]

This is a landmark case. If the NLRB rules against the Guild, or if they lose in court.. then every union paper in the country is free to void their contracts and arbitrarily reduce pay any amount they want.

Wouldn't that then be true for every union in the country, newspaper or otherwise? If management can void contracts and cut pay whenever they want, what's the point of unions?

Of course, as others have posted here, even if the guild wins the case, it could still lose even worse. If the guild wins, what is to stop NY Times Co. from just shutting the place down?

Nothing. Doesn't change the fact that this is a landmark case, which could change what it means to a laborer.

 

[jimmydangles]

Know that many producer folks on the Boston.com side are making much less than that of the longtime reporters...think <$40,000. Take 23 percent from that, and a solid wage becomes nearly unlivable. And the strongest asset in the company dramatically weakens.

 

[suburbia]

Know that many producer folks on the Boston.com side are making much less than that of the longtime reporters...think <$40,000. Take 23 percent from that, and a solid wage becomes nearly unlivable. And the strongest asset in the company dramatically weakens.

$40,000 is barely livable in Boston, especially if you have a spouse and kids.

 

[Joe Williams]

Know that many producer folks on the Boston.com side are making much less than that of the longtime reporters...think <$40,000. Take 23 percent from that, and a solid wage becomes nearly unlivable. And the strongest asset in the company dramatically weakens.

$40,000 is barely livable in Boston, especially if you have a spouse and kids.

Guessing they didn't get any of those cool lifetime job guarantees, either.

Welcome to new media!

 

[Herbert Anchovy]

$40K should not be an acceptable living wage anywhere, any time, for anyone who has worked enough and put in all the other bullshirt in order to be remunerated properly. Many of the suits would have you think you'd be living like the Pied forking Piper on that chickenfeed, which shows how hopelessly out of touch they are with the real-world needs of their "people."

There are few greater feelings of high anxiety than working a decent job that you are duly qualified for, and have angled for your entire adult life, and yet at the same time being functionally pish-poor in a New York, Seattle, Boston, Los Angeles, and on down the line.

 

[slappy4428]

http://www.startribune.com/nation/48963831.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4OW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUsZ

Boston Globe, largest union reach tentative agreement; Guild members must still vote to OK it

Associated Press

BOSTON - The Boston Globe and its largest union have reached a tentative agreement that will save the newspaper $10 million through salary and benefit cuts.

The Globe and the Boston Newspaper Guild issued separate e-mail statements late Tuesday announcing the agreement. The deal is scheduled to come to a vote before Guild membership — made up of 700 editorial, advertising and business employees — on July 20.

 

[Joe Williams]

So now we know the real value of "lifetime job guarantees":

They're worth the difference between a 5.94 percent wage cut and a 23 percent wage cut.

The next union that takes a proposal of "lifetime" anything back to its membership should immediately be shot.

 

[SF_Express]

So now we know the real value of "lifetime job guarantees":

They're worth the difference between a 5.94 percent wage cut and a 23 percent wage cut.

The next union that takes a proposal of "lifetime" anything back to its membership should immediately be shot.

Well, Joe, not to be simplistic about it, but the odds of "lifetime" anything ever being offered to anybody again are, simply, none. Not even worth mentioning slim.

 

[WriteThinking]

So now we know the real value of "lifetime job guarantees":

They're worth the difference between a 5.94 percent wage cut and a 23 percent wage cut.

The next union that takes a proposal of "lifetime" anything back to its membership should immediately be shot.

Well, Joe, not to be simplistic about it, but the odds of "lifetime" anything ever being offered to anybody again are, simply, none. Not even worth mentioning slim.

And, these days, no one would ever expect it.

 

[Joe Williams]

So now we know the real value of "lifetime job guarantees":

They're worth the difference between a 5.94 percent wage cut and a 23 percent wage cut.

The next union that takes a proposal of "lifetime" anything back to its membership should immediately be shot.

Well, Joe, not to be simplistic about it, but the odds of "lifetime" anything ever being offered to anybody again are, simply, none. Not even worth mentioning slim.

That's my point, though. It was silly to even negotiate "lifetime" this or that when tough times and the next round of contract talks could swat it away. Especially when those voting aren't the ones necessarily the ones with the "lifetime" whatevers.

Guess part of me thinks a union that negotiates "lifetime" this or that for its members needs to throw itself on that grenade in all future talks. I know that's completely unrealistic, but "lifetime" ought to be excised from people's vocabulary if neither side is going to back it up. Just plain silly.