Media
A 14-year labor dispute at the Democrat and Chronicle may be
winding to a conclusion.
But it’s not the conclusion members of the paper’s newsroom
union wanted.
In early December the reporters, photographers, copy
editors, and other newsroom employees who make up the Newspaper Guild of
Rochester voted to reject a contract the company called its “final, firm, and
best” offer.
The vote was 51 to 4.
Now, the Gannett corporation, which owns the D&C, has
told the paper’s newsroom workers that it plans to impose that contract anyway.
Citing the years the two sides have wrangled over a contract and the
lopsidedness of the Guild vote, Gannett has declared negotiations at an
impasse. That lets the company unilaterally impose a contract — the same
contract the Guild just voted down.
Officials at the company routinely refuse to comment to City
Newspaper about contract negotiations, so the letter informing the union of the
impending contract imposition is interesting. It provides a rare glimpse into
the mind of the company, and gives City readers a chance to hear the company’s
side of the story. Sort of.
The letter, written by Wendell Van Lare, Gannett’s senior
vice president for labor relations, doesn’t elucidate much of the reasoning
behind the company’s demands. Nor does it make a serious plea for the Guild’s
members to reconsider their position. It’s written in the tone of someone who
holds all the cards and knows it.
It actually reinforces the Guild’s contention that a 401K
plan — which the union wants and the company refuses to offer to Guild
members — is key to resolving the contract dispute. The union, whose members
have to work in the same building as employees who do get a 401K, sees the
company’s denial as a slap in the face and a ploy to break the union. Not
surprisingly, Van Lare describes it differently.
“It seems perfectly clear to me that the key issue that has
kept the parties from reaching an agreement over these many years has been the
Guild’s insistence on adding a new benefit to the contract, to wit, the 401K,
and the Company’s refusal to do so,” he writes.
Van Lare leaves the door open to negotiations just a crack
— if the union drops its demands and acquiesces to the company’s.
Gannett would reconsider the decision to cease negotiations,
Van Lare writes, “only in the event that the impasse is broken with a clear
change of position on the part of The Guild with respect to the 401K issue, the
need for scheduling flexibility, overtime compensation only over 40 hours, and
the elimination of seniority as the controlling factor in layoffs.”
Van Lare must know that the Guild won’t take him up on the
offer.
The letter lays the blame for the impasse squarely at the union’s
feet.
“A new contract would be preferable,” he writes, adding this
parting shot: “But, the way you chose to spin the Company’s offer to your
bargaining unit, and the overwhelming rejection of the final offer, after 14
years of bargaining, leads to the inescapable conclusion that further efforts
to reach an agreement would be fruitless.”
It’s not yet clear what will come next. Two weeks ago, the union broke news of the letter’s
contents to its members in a newsletter. The newsletter contained this bleak
assessment of their current predicament:
“It’s indicative of Gannett’s concern for its work force. At
some point a smile and half-hearted ‘Thank you’ become too little for the hard
work we all provide. We keep hoping our own management will intervene and
choose to do what’s right versus what’s expedient. We’ll see.”
Those last two sentences seem to suggest that the union hopes
Publisher Michael Kane or Editor Karen Magnuson will take their side against
Gannett. Earlier this year, Los Angeles Times Editor Dean Baquet and Publisher
Jeffrey Johnson defied the Tribune Company’s order to cut newsroom jobs. Baquet
and Johnson eventually got canned for it.
But both men had said publicly they would reject any cuts
that were ordered by corporate headquarters. Kane and Magnuson have been mum on
the contract issue.
The Guild may be able to appeal to the National Labor
Relations Board, if it thinks it can prove that the company didn’t negotiate in
good faith. But if it chooses that course, it’ll have to hurry. Van Lare’s
letter indicated that Gannett would impose the contract beginning January 1.
It’s unclear whether the union has lost its fight. Individual
reporters have said privately that the Guild almost certainly won’t risk a
strike. In the mid-90’s in Detroit,
Gannett proved that it had the stomach to fight a bitter and protracted strike.
Despite the difficult position the union finds itself in, its
members haven’t lost their dark humor. From the Guild newsletter, here’s an
excerpt of their take on the Gannett letter:
“We won’t recite all of Mr. Van Lare’s misstatements and
mischaracterizations here; they’re too numerous. We can only assume that this
letter was written with the idea that his corporate bosses would read it and
find favor with what he says. (Must have worked. This week, he, along with some
others in Gannett, was rewarded with 2,000 shares of Gannett stock for a job
well done. Remember that when you’re asked to bring your own food to a holiday
pot luck next week.)”
This article appears in Dec 27, 2006 – Jan 2, 2007.
