Sitting in: The rules

Negotiations at The Seattle Times and Seattle Post-Intelligencer are open to any Guild members who wish to attend. If you choose to sit in on a bargaining session, please observe the following protocol:

1. Unless you've been specifically invited as a "guest" negotiator, plan to attend sessions on your own time, such as breaks, lunch or dinner periods, or on your days off.

2. Try not to disrupt when you enter or leave. When you enter, explain that you are there to observe. Take a seat in the room away from the negotiating table.

3. Do not speak during negotiation sessions unless someone on the Guild bargaining team invites you to do so. You are free to stay in the room when the Guild takes a break and goes into caucus. That's a great time to ask questions of the bargaining team.

"We're going to move and meet you where we can"

P-I management, in a departure from its past stance, said Wednesday that it’s willing to talk about “effects” issues that would occur in the event of the P-I’s closing.

Management had previously declined to discuss such issues, including payment of COBRA benefits, so as not to increase worries about a possible shutdown. The Guild’s bargaining team argued that employees are already worried about that possibility, and assurances that their health benefits would continue through COBRA would give people peace of mind.

Management negotiator Matt Lynch said that the paper would “see what we can do about” several issues raised by the Guild including:

• COBRA payments
• Assurances that P-I members would be employed if Hearst closes the P-I and buys The Seattle Times.
• Improved severance packages

Management said it would make a counterproposal at the next bargaining session on Monday, July 10, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. at a location to be decided. Guild members are encouraged to attend. Another session is scheduled July 13, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. in the first-floor conference room.

“We’re going to move and meet you where we can,” Lynch said.

Guild negotiators asked about P-I publisher Roger Oglesby’s provocative comment at a staff meeting on Tuesday. He seemed to suggest that dismissal pay would not be paid in the event of a plant closure.

Guild Administrative Officer Liz Brown called the statement “provocative” and ill-advised. Lynch said the matter was “moot because we’re discussing dismissal pay in the event of a plant closure.” He never explicitly said dismissal pay would be honored.

After a particularly disappointing session last week in which management offered no more money than in its initial proposal, the Guild’s bargaining team – Candace Heckman, Athima Chansanchai, Art Thiel and Kery Murakami – made its own counteroffer. Among the key elements:

• Withdrew its proposal for a $5,000 signing bonus;
• Proposed a retention bonus of eight weeks of pay for all bargaining-unit members who are still employed at the time of the arbitrator’s decision next year if the arbitration decision or any decision by any party that would lead to the closure of the P-I.

(Management had offered six weeks.)

The retention bonus would be taken out of the regular severance due to employees; the balance would be paid if people remained at the paper until closure.

Ordinarily, you get no severance if you leave voluntarily. Under this proposal, people who stay until a negative arbitrator’s decision would get the bonus even if they leave voluntarily.

Lynch wondered if even the eight weeks of pay would be enough of an incentive for people to stay, and said management may instead come back with a different proposal to address retention;

• Proposed increasing severance pay in the event of a closure to three weeks for every year of service, instead of two weeks for every year of service.
• Lynch said management will consider proposing “an enhanced form of dismissal pay.”
• Proposed a payout of the cash equivalent of COBRA costs for one year in the event of closure. Lynch said employers typically do not give the cash equivalent of COBRA costs, but might be willing to make COBRA payments for employees;
• Proposed guaranteed jobs for P-I employees at the Times, should Hearst buy the Times and close the P-I. Lynch said management would be reluctant to make “guarantees” but said, “we’ll see what’s possible.”

P-I management said it’s also willing to deal with the problem some people are having with PTO. Some employees have been denied permission to take PTO, even though they have maxed out on accumulating more time.

“You have a sympathetic ear in that area,” Lynch said.

Additionally, Lynch said management would return with a response to the Guild’s proposal for help finding jobs, like resume writing; the use of P-I facilities for job searches, and letters of recommendations and references in the event the paper closes.

“We’re still apart on some issues, but there’s hope,” Lynch said.

P-I's money proposal

The company is offering employees the ability to cash out 25 percent of their severance and ditch early if the arbitrator comes back and closes the paper. In order to get one's full severance package, the employee would have to stay until the very end.

Here are some real examples of what some people would get without saying who these people are:

• 30+ year vet --$15,000 cash out --$91,544 remainder
• 20+ year vet --$15,000 cash out --$55,188 remainder
• 15+ year vet --$11,417 cash out --$34,252 remainder
• 10+ year vet --$6,585 cash out --$19,754 remainder
• 5+ year vet --$4,391 cash out --$13,171 remainder
• newbie --$1,870 cash out --$5,610 remainder

The fact that the company even proposed giving some money should probably be seen as a good sign. However, the complexity of its plan obviously leads me to question it. Basically, management's idea was to give something to new people (we're hiring a lot lately), but also allow for mid-level staffers to get out of Dodge early should the paper have to close.

The main question: Will it be enough to stop the brain drain? Management says, "Yes." Guild says "No." Only time and the needs of competing newsrooms will give the real answer.

P-I offers shell game, refuses to double down

P-I management came to the negotiating table Friday saying that they were willing to hear the Guild's employee-retention ideas, but in the end didn't offer much willingness to change the company's initial proposal.

"They wouldn't budge on the night differential, the split days off. How hard is it to increase the night differential from a dollar?" said Liz Brown, administrative officer for the Pacific Northwest Newspaper Guild. "They're stepping over dollars to pick up dimes at this point."

Company negotiators Matt Lynch, John Currie and Janet Grimley have continually declined to discuss anything but payscale increases over the next two years and changes to the contract's current severance package.

Lynch said that management would rather not discuss potential "effects" issues, that is benefits upon layoffs or closure, until that time has come and the company and its employees are certain that they will no longer have jobs.

Though Publisher Roger Oglesby and his managers have said that they believe they will win the arbitration battle with The Seattle Times, Lynch and Currie did not respond favorably to a request by Guild negotiator Art Thiel when he said that extra money is needed to give "vivid, dramatic indications of Hearst's confidence in its position."

The company's proposal last week was to enhance severance for people with seniority of six years or less, to offer a partial payout of severance upon the potential announcement of the P-I's closure and give minimum pay increases of $25 a week next year.

Guild negotiators suggested, however, that the Publisher "double down" on a bet that the P-I will continue to publish after the arbitration decision by offering employees a $10,000 one-time bonus should the Publisher be wrong.

Both Lynch and Currie seemed offended that staffers would be skeptical of the Publisher's statement that Hearst would win the arbitration battle. But Thiel reminded them that negotiators represent journalists, who are paid specifically for their skepticism and willingness to question authority.

"People are skeptical of Hearst's historical abandonment of, for example, San Antonio," Thiel added.

With that in mind, the Guild also proposed doubling the amount of severance for all employees.

"If the P-I is going to continue publishing, then it doesn't matter because you won't have to pay," Guild negotiator Candace Heckman told management. "We're going to win, right? So, all of this will be a moot point, anyway."

When Guild negotiators suggested that the company offer a conditional signing bonus as an incentive to keep employees in the house for the duration of the arbitration, management responded by saying that this year's pay-for-performance increases were meant to accomplish that.

The company's contract proposal also included a minimum pay raise of $20 for this year with the understanding that most employees already received an average 4-percent pay-for-performance increase. Guild negotiators pointed out most people do not know that the company meant for these raises to be its primary enticement to stay.

"The publisher is still going to handle individual retention issues, as well, and that ought not to be undervalued," Lynch said.

The company made a counterproposal that did not include the additional signing bonus, retention bonus, or increased severance for all employees. The company did not offer any more money than in its current proposal, but shifted funds.

The shift included lowering this year's average 4-percent pay increase to an average 2-percent increase. The difference would be divided up and paid to employees through an $800 one-time bonus.

Guild negotiators noted that this was simply giving staff the money the company already gave them. Additionally, since everyone would get $800, some people would actually get less money than they would have earned over the course of the year.

"Advancing money that would already have accrued is not new money," Thiel responded.

P-I management has said repeatedly that its focus in contract talks was employee retention. Guild negotiators, however, left Friday's meeting with doubts about the sincerity of those statements.

When Guild negotiators indicated that management needed to offer more money to buy their staff's trust, the Publisher's representative, Matt Lynch, said that he did not understand how retention or signing bonuses would be adequate incentives for retaining employees.

Lynch seemed upset that the company's pay-for-performance raises in May and its proposed $25-a-week raise next year would not be good enough to keep the P-I's most talented journalists on staff.

"The sense I'm getting is that too much was spent on PFP this year," Lynch said, seemingly frustrated. "The paper isn't willing to spend a million dollars on employees right now."

(See the complete proposal below.)

P-I's latest offer

(Strikethrough and underscore aren't available in Blogger.
RED will indicate strikethrough and BLUE will indicate underscore below:)

Seattle Post-Intelligencer/CWA-Newspaper Guild Local 37082
Publisher Proposal
June 9, 2006

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer (“P-I” or “the Publisher”) proposes the following changes to the labor agreement by and between the Publisher and the CWA-Newspaper Guild Local 37082 (“Guild”), expiring on July 22, 2006, as a basis for a new agreement:

1. Under the Preamble, revise list of excluded job titles consistent with those described in Attachment A to this proposal.
2. Under Article XIV- Job Classifications and Minimum Salaries, increase contract weekly minimum rates of pay by twenty dollars ($20.00) effective July 22, 2006, and another twenty-five dollars ($25.00) effective July 22, 2007. Pay for performance pay increases for 2006 were effective May 1, 2006, and supersede weekly minimum rates of pay effective July 22,2006.
The bargaining unit may, as an alternative to the four percent (4%) average increases to the Pay for Performance pool that was effective May 1, 2006, elect to reduce the pooled increase and individual increases from an average of four percent (4%) to two percent (2%) effective July 1, 2006. Under this alternate proposal, the Publisher will redistribute two percent (2%) of the pooled amount that would have been payable to employees as wages for the period July 1, 2006 through April 30, 2007 to employees equally in the form of a lump sum signing bonus, payable as soon as practicable after the date of ratification.
3. Tentative Agreement (TA) 6/2/06: Revise the third sentence of Article XI-Leaves of Absence, paragraph (B), as follows: “Request for leave shall be submitted at least sixty (60) thirty (30) days in advance but may be accepted with less notice.”
4. TA 6/2/06: Revise the second sentence of Article XI-Leaves of Absence, paragraph (B)(4), as follows: “An employee shall be entitled to take an unpaid leave of absence for childbirth or adoption for a reasonable length of time and thereafter return to her/his job.”
5. TA 6/2/06: Delete Memorandum of Understanding on compensatory time off and create a NEW Article XVI(J): “It is understood at the employee’s request and with agreement by the Publisher, compensatory time at time and one-half may be taken during the work week in lieu of compensation for overtime in cash.”
6. TA 6/2/06: Under Article XIX, paragraph (O), add “domestic partner of either sex” and “any relative who regularly lived with the employee” to the definition of “immediate family.”
7. Memorandum of Understanding – Termination Pay: If, and only if, the arbitrator’s decision in Case No. 03-2-23950-0 SEA (King County Superior Court) necessitates the cessation of newspaper publishing operations by The Hearst Corporation under the terms of the Agreement to Arbitrate between The Hearst Corporation and the Seattle Times Company, filed with the court on March 30, 2006, this memorandum of understanding wilol supersede and replace Article VI- Dismissal Pay. Under this proposal, the Publisher and the Guild agree that Article VI-Dismissal Pay and this MOU will not be subject to renegotiation during the term of the labor agreement. With this exception, the Guild reserves the right to engage in effects bargaining consistent with federal labor law principles.
Each regular full-time and part-time employee on the active payroll of the P-I on the date of the above-referenced arbitration decision will receive a retention bonus of six (6) weeks pay as calculated under the schedule in Attachment B. This payment will be payable only in the event the P-I ceases newspaper publishing operations, which payment shall occur as soon as practicable after the cessation of newspaper publishing operations.
Each regular and full time and part-time employee on the active payroll of the P-I on its last day of publication and who suffer an involuntary loss of employment resulting from the cessation of newspaper operations shall receive the remaining portion of their termination pay as calculated under the schedule in Attachment B. Bonus payments will be made as soon as practicable after the cessation of newspaper publishing operations. Anyone who accepts employment at another Hearst property will not be entitled to payment under this provision.
If a former employee applies for a benefit under Article XX – Alternate Benefits Severance Plan after the above-referenced arbitration decision which necessitates the cessation of newspaper publishing operations by Hearst, any termination payment(s) made or due the employee under this MOU will be deducted from the alternate benefits severance payment.
The Publisher will continue to address individual retention issue on a case-by-case basis.
8. Under Article XXIII – Term, revise paragraph (A) to reflect a contract term of two (2) years running from July 22, 2006 to July 21, 2008.


Attachment A
Seattle P-I
Incumbents in Positions Excluded from Membership in Newspaper Guild
June 2, 2006
Positions: Underline = new. Strikethrough = delete.

From Preamble

Resident Controller
Vacant

Executive Editor
Vacant

Managing Editor
David McCumber

Deputy Managing Editors
Vacant

Metro Editor
Vacant

Editorial Page Editor
Mark Trahant

News Editors
Gil Aegerter

Systems Editors
Dave Guest
Wally Rice

Sports Editors
Ron Matthews
Nick Rousso

General Accounting & Facilities Manager
Bob Swearingen

Promotion Manager
Vacant

Copy Desk Chiefs News
Bill Fink
Bill Hayes
Karin McGinn

Copy Desk Chief Lifestyle

Copy Desk Chief Sports

Assigning Editors
Angelo Bruscas
Chris Grygiel
Duston Harvey
Alana Kelton
John Levesque
Bill Miller
Bob Schenert
Scott Sunde

Business Editor
Margaret Santjer

Asst. Business Editor
Vacant

News Editor – Sports

Focus Editor
Vacant

Asst. Metro Editors
Vacant

Asst. Managing Editors
Chris Beringer
Janet Grimley
Rita Hibbard
Mark Matassa
Michelle Nicolosi
Lee Rozen

Graphics & Design Editor
Julie Simon

Photo Editor
John Dickson

Asst. Photo Editors
Andy Rogers

Arts & Entertainment Editor
Vacant

Readers Representative
Glenn Drosendahl

Senior Editor
Vacant

Associate Editor
Kimberly Mills

Head Librarian
Lytton Smith

Asst. Sports Editor
Vacant

National/Foreign Editor
Vacant

Art Director
Vacant

Lifestyle Editors
John Engstrom

Associate Publisher
Ken Bunting

Confidential employees
Merilee Ummel


Article XIX (H) – Confidential Administrative Assistants to:

Publisher
Michele Turpiin

Executive Editor
Vacant

Managing Editor
Michele Mosher

Associate Editor
Vacant

Business Manager
See Publisher

Resident Controller
Vacant


Memorandum of Understanding – Excluded by name:

David Horsey
Joe Copeland (the “employee to be named later”)