Union: 'S.F. Chronicle' Could Cut Up to 225 Jobs

By: Joe Strupp The San Francisco Chronicle, which recently threatened a shutdown or sale if union concessions are not met, told the local Newspaper Guild that at least 150 jobs would be cut regardless, and likely up to 225 coudl be lost if givebacks are not approved, the union said in a bulletin.

The same bulletin stated that the Northern California Media Workers had offered to cut vacation, sick time, seniority rights and other contract guarantees if helpful, as well as a 5% percent across-the-board pay reduction.

"We were thanked for the effort, and told some of our ideas had merit. But the company showed no real interest in working with us on a joint business recovery plan," the bulletin added. "Most disheartening, we were told that even if they agreed to slash pay and vacations as we offered, it would make no difference: the devastating job cuts, affecting more than one-third of our members, most likely would happen anyway. And the paper might be closed anyway."

The update follows the Feb. 24 announcement by Hearst Corp., owners of the paper, that union concessions were needed to stem the tide of losses that are estimated to reach $50 million in 2009.

Negotiations have been ongoing almost daily since that announcement, the union revealed, but with no indication a deal is close to being finalized.

"We demanded at the outset of these talks to examine the company?s books," the bulletin added. "Management refused. We also asked for detailed estimates of the cost savings associated with each element of the company?s proposal. That request also was refused."

Chronicle and Hearst officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.

The entire bulletin, placed on the union's Web site, is posted below:

***************************************


BARGAINING UPDATE

Little progress seen in Chronicle concession talks
Members reviewing options as ultimatum looms

05 Mar 2009

Media Workers Guild

The following Negotiations Summary was distributed to Guild members at the San Francisco Chronicle today:

Hearst Corp.?s local management of the San Francisco Chronicle announced 2/24/09 that significant and continuing losses, on the order of at least $50 million a year, forced dramatic cost reductions.

In order to achieve these savings, changes would be needed in collective bargaining agreements with the Guild and Teamsters. If agreements could not be reached quickly, the paper would be put up for sale or closed. The company wanted limits to arbitration, an end to seniority-based layoffs, reduced sick leave, ad sales staff out of the Guild, longer workweeks and eventually no more pensions.??

We have been meeting almost daily since the announcement. Teamster leaders have sat in for some of these talks, and we have been in close touch with them throughout. Our understanding is that once we have concluded our Guild contract discussions with the management, the Teamsters (whose ranks include separate locals representing drivers and production crews) would expect to sit down and begin discussing their own contract.??

Management came in with a complete package of proposals and a warning that at least 150 jobs out of the Guild?s jurisdiction were to be eliminated EVEN IF WE AGREED to the cost cuts and contractual changes the company demanded.

Additional severance would be provided, up to one year?s pay plus health care. Buyouts on similar terms would be available. But if we could not reach agreement, the layoffs would number perhaps 225, with virtually no severance (other than 60 days as legally required, and two weeks? pay and two months? health care as provided in the current contract.)??

Any changes in our contract must be ratified by majority vote of our members (majority of those voting). By long custom, we vote in person, by secret ballot at a ratification meeting, following open debate. (Time and place of meeting to be announced.)??Our bargaining committee has reached no overall agreement with the management. Nor does our committee recommend passage of the ?final proposal? before us. We can only say this: No option at this point looks favorable. The proposal before us may be the ?least bad? choice. In any case, we chose to put the question to our members to decide.??

We demanded at the outset of these talks to examine the company?s books. Management refused. We also asked for detailed estimates of the cost savings associated with each element of the company?s proposal. That request also was refused.??

Still, given the high stakes, we chose to stay at the table. We wanted to see if we could find a way to negotiate cost savings to stave off layoffs. We made a commitment to do all we could to reach an agreement for the good of all. We did not achieve our goal ? but not because we failed to try.??

Without being asked, the Guild offered deep cuts in our own pay (5 percent across the board, including 5 percent of all overscale pay) and cancellation of ALL our paid vacation for one year (vacation would convert to the right to unpaid time off) amounting to 4 percent or more in payroll reduction.

We offered to meet any cuts in pensions recommended by the Guild-management joint trust. We agreed to lengthen the workweek from 37.5 to 40 hours per week, with no change in rate of weekly pay, in effect a 6 percent pay cut. We invited management to follow a similar course for its own exempt employees, which we expected might not only help to save money, but would build a sense of mission and shared sacrifice. We showed we were serious about trying to help save this paper, and we wanted to do it together.??

We recognized, too, that some layoffs were inevitable. So we offered a two-month period in which layoffs could be used to cut up to 50 jobs, without regard to seniority rights, provided a one-month buyout option would be offered first. We contemplated outsourcing would eliminate most likely 30 more jobs. We proposed no layoff moratorium after this special reduction in force, fully expecting still more layoffs might be needed ? without any required severance.??

This was an unprecedented offer by any union so far as we know. Management rejected the offer.??

We also proposed several ideas and initiatives targeting revenue, including a joint labor-management campaign to boost subscriptions and public support for The Chronicle, a multimedia/training effort, comprehensive help for laid-off workers, and reform of our health care plan to rein in cost increases.??

We were thanked for the effort, and told some of our ideas had merit. But the company showed no real interest in working with us on a joint business recovery plan. Most disheartening, we were told that even if they agreed to slash pay and vacations as we offered, it would make no difference: the devastating job cuts, affecting more than one-third of our members, most likely would happen anyway. And the paper might be closed anyway.??

The overarching message: Even under the company?s plan, management expects at least $50 million will be lost this next year by The Chronicle due to recession and the collapse of the ad market in print media. We sympathized with the management negotiators delivering this grim message. Clearly, they took no joy in it.??

We did win some changes in the company?s initial proposals through our discussions ? enough to convince us this package should be put before our members to decide.? ?The following is a summary of the key points in the company?s ?final offer? now before us:??

TERM: March 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010 (expiration of contract). Evergreen clause in contract means all terms and conditions as amended continue during negotiations for a successor agreement.??

JOBS: Informal indications of layoffs or buyouts on the order of 150+ jobs if the concessions are implemented, 225 or more if not.??

SENIORITY: Eliminated for layoff protection. Any employee can be laid off, even the most senior in a department or classification. No right to challenge the layoff decisions.??

GUILD SHOP: Employees hired after 1/1/06 and whose main job is to sell ads can remain in the bargaining unit, but can avoid becoming dues-paying members (open shop for ad sales) without losing Guild protection. (Company initially demanded to exclude these employees from Guild coverage.)??

ARBITRATION: Only in cases of discipline or discharges for cause. No right to arbitrate contract interpretation or other disputes.??

OUTSOURCING: No protections for employees whose jobs are lost to subcontracting.??

SEVERANCE: Two weeks? pay per year of service, up to max of 52 weeks? pay. Health care company-paid for up to one year, matching the severance term. (A new proposal received today 3/5/09 from the management added a provision that severance would not be paid to employees "in the event of a cessation of publication of the print newspaper or a complete closure of the San Francisco Chronicle.")??

REHIRE LIST: Eliminated.??

TEMPORARY/ON-CALL: Unlimited right to hire temps/on-callers. (Discussions ongoing. A proposal received today 3/5/09 from the management added a provision that temps must be terminated before regular employees in a given classification are laid off.)??RAISE: Our scheduled Jan. 2010 raise would be diverted into the health plan. No further pay increases scheduled.??

SICK LEAVE: Usage would be capped at 20 days through July 2010 when the current contract expires. Thereafter you could draw no more than 10 sick days per year until a new agreement is reached.??

LEAVES: Anyone returning from most types of leave (sabbaticals, Guild leave etc.) would get a job back if one is available. (Used to be a right to same or comparable job.)??WORKWEEK: Workday goes from 7.5 hours to 8 hours with no change in pay.??

TRANSFERS: No mileage or drive-time pay for transfers beyond 65 miles.??

PENSIONS: Discussions about the pensions are ongoing and are separate from our talks. The contract amendment as proposed by management sets out a plan for major changes, but these would take effect only after pension trustees agree, and the details and timing are uncertain. (Note: A revised management proposal was received today indicating the management was withdrawing most pension-related provisions, proposing to refer the matter to trustees.)