Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2009
| Subscribe to Newser's RSS feeds RSS | Follow Newser on Twitter Twitter


8

Globe Union Rejects Pay Cut

Struggling newspaper's staff vote against deal to slice pay, benefits despite warnings

Share

(Newser) – The Boston Globe's biggest union has turned down a contract involving pay and benefit cuts despite threats that doing so may lead to deeper cuts, the New York Times reports. Boston Newspaper Guild members voted 277-265 against the offer from the New York Times Company after 12 hours of voting, and are now seeking to reopen negotiations.

The Globe's owners have warned that closing the struggling newspaper remains an option. The company has said it will seek to impose a 23% pay cut across the board now that its offer has been rejected, but union members accuse it of bluffing. "The company is obligated to go back to the table and negotiate, so there’s no crystal ball beyond that,” the guild's president said.

A worker vacuums the front doorway of the Boston Globe building.
A worker vacuums the front doorway of the Boston Globe building.   (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)
Boston Newspaper Guild President Dan Totten, left, walks to meet with reporters outside the Boston Globe building in the Dorchester neighborhood of Boston, yesterday.
Boston Newspaper Guild President Dan Totten, left, walks to meet with reporters outside the Boston Globe building in the Dorchester neighborhood of Boston, yesterday.   (AP Photo/Charles Krupa)
A reader buys a copy of the Boston Globe in Harvard Square in Cambridge, Mass. The paper's owners have warned that closure remains an option if contract talks fail.
A reader buys a copy of the Boston Globe in Harvard Square in Cambridge, Mass. The paper's owners have warned that closure remains an option if contract talks fail.   (AP Photo/Josh Reynolds)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

With today's vote, members of the Boston Newspaper Guild have said that The New York Times Company must do better.
- Daniel Totten, president of the Boston Newspaper Guild

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
8 comments
VIEWING:
 
tameesha_sharpton
Jun 9, 09 5:57 AM CDT
i hope the members who voted yes are allowed to quit the union and work hard to help turn the company around. i also hope that the members who voted no find employment elsewhwere. iif you don't like what the company is offering, then it's time to move on. this union president just doesn't understand the deal is not going to improve. all their other unions have agreed to the cuts ant nyt isn't going to ammend all these contracts. times are tough and i don't think that the nyt is bluffing. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Robert_Dada
Jun 9, 09 6:15 AM CDT
Times are tough indeed but let's not forget who is at fault. Unions have little to do with the demise of newspapers. During the 90's, newspaper conglomerates (and by extension, their shareholders) were enjoying 30+ percent returns but decided to siphon off these profits for personal wealth as opposed to reinvesting in the business and technology model, which was about to rapidly change due to the web. Once again, rich management fat cats shot themselves in the foot, but it's the average union worker who is bearing the burden of this disasterous business strategy. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
tameesha_sharpton
Jun 9, 09 6:34 AM CDT
take a wild guess ... what is the largest expense for a newspaper. now guess why some individuals have lifetime job guarantees? these same individuals will be paid 100% salary/benefits even if their job disappears due to technology. they don't even have to agreee to be retrained or move to another job within the company. unions absolutely refused to embrace any technology that would improve productivity if it was a danger to its membership. there are thousands of lifetime employees that come to work and do absolutely nothing. wages for non union workers has been dropping and now when told to share the pain, you fools reject. it is absolutely your right and your decision, just be preapared for more pain. management knows that you can't strike, as this would break the contract and allow members to quit the union, and at least half would run for that door. why is it mandatory that 8 of 10 hires join the guild ? it's laughable to say that stockholders are responsible. they have in most cases become bagholders with vrery significant losses.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
Reader65069154
Jun 9, 09 7:12 AM CDT
I hope they get what they voted for - unemployment.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
Robert_Dada
Jun 9, 09 7:42 AM CDT
Tameesha you are wrong. The significant stockholders long ago cashed out their positions when profits not reinvested in the long term strategy of the company inflated the stock prices. They got theirs. There's no bag holding on their part. So why would/should the union give in? Executive management sure as hell never did.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
LEAVE A
COMMENT
Comment Policy
Facebook ConnectPost this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.