Boston Globe rejects cuts

[KP]

277-265 against the proposal.

http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2009/06/globes_largest_1.html

http://bostonherald.com/business/general/view/2009_06_08_Globe_Guild_rejects_contract_proposal__277-265/srvc=home&position=0

 

[MileHigh]

Wow. I know it was a hard call to make, but still ... wow.

 

[Tucsondriver]

This will not end well...

 

[BYH]

It wasn't going to end well regardless.

 

[sportsed]

Dunno what the outcome will be, but at least now we'll get to see what hand management really had.

 

[Andy _ Kent]

Tucson,

Nice avatar. Met her in person last year when Team USA came to South Florida as part of their pre-Olympics tour and she is even more beautiful up close. Her hubby, Casey Daigle, is one lucky dude.

 

[jimnorden]

what's the next step here? the 23 percent cut can't happen right away, right?

damn this is a mess.

oh, and i've never seen that softball player up close.

 

[KP]

Management says 23 percent pay cut effective next week.

 

[MileHigh]

Yeah, management can put in the 23 percent pay cut right away.

Again, this was a tough call, but three-plus months out ... I wish I could have been given the choice vs. what ultimately happened.

 

[JayFarrar]

and then it will go to court.
the downside for the Times, that if they were to lose, they would owe millions in back pay, but this is, in a way, uncharted territory for publishing companies.
Yeah, places have been in courts for years, but this one is different because the Times Company could just say screw it and shut the Globe down.

 

[RickStain]

23 percent paycut? Sheesh. Why stop there? If you can get away with that, you can get away with anything.

And I never thought she was hot.

 

[Fredrick]

A 23 percent pay cut is hideous. Morale has to be horrible, not that that matters to higherups. Morale is of no concern to them. Man, East coast mentality ... there have to be some pissed off Easterners.

 

[bostonbred]

still hard to stomach that this is happening to the boston globe, once the gold standard of sports journalism.

 

[Bubbler]

I'd have voted against it. At some point, this **** goes from economic necessity to gouging. St. Louis is in the same boat right now.

It makes the Guild proposals my oft-maligned company has made look very rosy in comparison.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

This is headed straight for litigation. First to the NLRB. It is not beyond the realm of possibility the union could find a friendly judge to issue an injunction against those furriners from New York.
I think the voters made the best of two sucky choices. Approximately 50 percent of them would have been voting for their own unemployment with a yes vote anyhow.
If the Times wants to shut it down, let 'em. Then let 'em try selling their own paper here. I'll cancel, and I'll bet a lot of other Bostonians would too.

 

[trifectarich]

Given a choice between getting 77 percent of your paycheck or none, the option seems to be clear, but I'm glad I've never been faced with such a choice.

 

[ServeItUp]

This is headed straight for litigation. First to the NLRB. It is not beyond the realm of possibility the union could find a friendly judge to issue an injunction against those furriners from New York.
I think the voters made the best of two sucky choices. Approximately 50 percent of them would have been voting for their own unemployment with a yes vote anyhow.
If the Times wants to shut it down, let 'em. Then let 'em try selling their own paper here. I'll cancel, and I'll bet a lot of other Bostonians would too.

I was wondering if someone would suggest shutting it down. Over on the St. Louis thread, I believe it was suggested that the union tell corporate to shut down the paper and pay the severance agreed to by the Guild, and make a go of their own rag. Good on the Globe folks, and God's speed.

 

[beardpuller]

Given a choice between getting 77 percent of your paycheck or none, the option seems to be clear, but I'm glad I've never been faced with such a choice.

Really? It does? What if the option was, say, getting 30 percent of your pay vs. none? Would that choice still be clear?

By the way, the proposal they voted on wasn't for a 23 percent pay cut. That's what management will now seek to institute, as I understand it. The proposed cut was much smaller. I guess management did a poor job of justifying it to the Guild.

 

[JimmyHoward33]

140 didn't even vote.....to me that's just eggregious.

Herald says proposed cuts were 8.4 percent via furloughs and big losses in benefits and loss of lifetime gaurantee. Doesn't sound all that different from what the rest of us are working with, so without more details seems like a better option than 23% off.

 

[ScribePharisee]

23 percent paycut? Sheesh. Why stop there? If you can get away with that, you can get away with anything.

And I never thought she was hot.

CHNI, that popular dirtbag of journalism companies, and Gannett, the self-proclaimed industry innovator, are taking hard notes on this 23 percent thingy....I just wonder how Gannett is dealing with its jealousy concerning their failure to come up with this idea first.