Some of our management friends at The Creek seem to be spreading a little dish about the Guild - after always first acknowledging that, of course, we have a right to organize and unionize. (They most assuredly know that our growing organizing drive is bolstered by both the law and the stats: MediaNews employs more Guild-represented workers than any other U.S. publisher.)
But apparently their PR consultant's talking points encourage them to say that in all their years they haven't seen a union that did a bit of good. Then it comes - wait for it - "you know, like the old ANG union."
Uh huh. Just tell that to everyone of us who finally gained regular pay raises and grievance procedures after years under MNG, solely because of the perseverance of the ANG union.
And how many non-Guild newsworkers got the kind of package Jonathan Jones did when layoffs came? An ANG reporter with The Argus, he took a Guild-negotiated deal during the first round of post-consolidation layoffs (btw, layoffs that MNG management assured us wouldn't happen). Jonathan was finally able to take off for the foreign correspondent career he'd always wanted and was in Uganda last I heard. The ANG union cushioned the blow for a bunch of us. It would have been a lot uglier otherwise, a full hatchet job.
But apparently their PR consultant's talking points encourage them to say that in all their years they haven't seen a union that did a bit of good. Then it comes - wait for it - "you know, like the old ANG union."
Uh huh. Just tell that to everyone of us who finally gained regular pay raises and grievance procedures after years under MNG, solely because of the perseverance of the ANG union.
And how many non-Guild newsworkers got the kind of package Jonathan Jones did when layoffs came? An ANG reporter with The Argus, he took a Guild-negotiated deal during the first round of post-consolidation layoffs (btw, layoffs that MNG management assured us wouldn't happen). Jonathan was finally able to take off for the foreign correspondent career he'd always wanted and was in Uganda last I heard. The ANG union cushioned the blow for a bunch of us. It would have been a lot uglier otherwise, a full hatchet job.
Look, we know firsthand you're on your own at MNG without a contract: they'll pay you what they want and fire you when they want - no if's, and's or but's.
And if we're so useless, why is management going out of their way to do all sorts of (costly) things they never bothered with before? You notice all the attention we're getting since they started feeling the heat of the union drive. Can you just imagine what it will be like once we have a BANG union in place? Holy Moly. No wonder management is fighting us.
6 comments:
Angela,
I totally hear you.
It's kind of galling to hear word that some managers are distorting the basic truth about unions-- saying, essentially, they haven't seen a union do a bit of good for newspapers.
I mean, the logic twist is so demented...and reminds me of a NPR piece I heard recently about the plastic bag ban in San Francisco.
The reporter was speaking with with a PR man for the plastic bag industry who said something to the effect of, "Plastic bags are actually quite 'green,' providing a number of benefits to the environment."
Leave it to PR types to promulgate the exact opposite of the truth!
For anyone who wonders for a second whether it may be true that unions actually hurt journalists, I'll refer you to what Pulitzer Prize winner Rick Tulsky at the San Jose Mercury News has to say on the subject.
I'd paraphrase but don't want to dilute the sentiment:
"I've been on the staff of different newspapers for more than 30 years, both union and nonunion. And I can say unequivocally that reporters and editors are treated better at union papers. There is more protection built in for staff members against arbitrary decisions. There is less favoritism. And there is a sense among the staff that we have more of a voice. It also tends to cost companies more money, which of course is one key reason why so many fight so hard against unions."
Hey Angela. I wonder if you or anyone cares to address this prior post, which apparently nobody at the union was able to refute when I initially posted it.
I realize you're acting as a censor to decide what gets posted and what doesn't. So I case this gets through your censors, then here it is.
*****
Dear Media Guild (Carl Hall)
You ripped a poster who thought the union agreed to a contract that shielded you -- a news reporter -- and other journalists -- like Michael Cabanatuan -- from the brunt of the wage cuts, benefit cuts and other compensation compensation. But I stumbled across some evidence that suggests that is in fact what happened.
From the Associated Press in July 2005:
*****
A pay freeze that has been in place since the beginning of the year will end in January for journalists and outside salespersons. But roughly 40 percent of Guild members at the paper will see immediate pay cuts, Cabanatuan said.
*****
Unless Michael Cabanatuan was accidentally or deliberately inaccurate, here's how a logical person would read this:
If "all journalists" and "outside sales people" enjoyed the benefits of an end to a pay freeze in January, that "40 percent" who saw "immediate pay cuts" must have come from NON JOURNALISTS.
You like to call people liars and children, apparently, who disagree with you.
But perhaps in this open forum -- which you union folks set up -- maybe you can explain how it was that journalists and sales persons had their pay freezes lifted within months of the ratification of this contract. Yet at the same time, 40 percent had to suffer immediate pay cuts.
If journalists would have their pay freezes lifted within five months, who were the 40 percent who had to suffer "immediate" reductions in their wages.
I'm also curious about the following: What about the three or four years when you defenders of the working class FAILED to get any pay raises at the Alameda County papers?
Wasn't the Guild responsible for that, as much as management?
Why was the Guild so ineffective in getting pay raises? Why is the Guild so great for the news industry in the Bay Area when it looks like Frank Vega, and then Dean Singleton, mopped the floor with you union leaders on both sides of the Bay?
Here is an addendum. I spoke directly to a sales person who was NOT in the newsroom part of the SF Media Guild.
This person, who still works at the SF Chronicle, said the guild-negotiated contract landed her and her colleagues -- the ones who were not immediately fired by the SFChron after the Guild-approved contract went into effect -- the following provisions
1. a loss of 10 days of sick leave
2. a loss of one week vacation
3. the company stopped paying into the pension fund.
Can the Media Guild explain why people in certain parts of the bargaining unit were treated differently than others?
thanks.
We had difficult choices then and we -- the Chronicle Guild members -- chose the option of a contract designed to avoid a strike, sale of the paper, or deep job cuts in the face of documented losses at the Chronicle. The contract was ratified overwhelmingly after an open debate. Some of the strongest calls for ratification were from the ad department and other non-editorial departments.
The contract is on our website for anyone to see. I believe if we had it facing us again right now, the margin would be even more lopsided in favor of that same settlement. It remains among the best deals in the newspaper business. We hope to make it better in 2010, but we cant find a magic wand to make bad industry conditions go away. So we stick together and fight for the best we can achieve.
Same holds for ANG. Ive never heard those members make any apologies, and certainly we make no apologies. We have a chance now to gain more power, despite the lousy economics we all face. Working in good faith I see no reason we cant find a fair settlement with any employer.
As I've told SF Media Guy previously, I'm happy to address the issues he raises with anyone -- particularly BANG folks -- face to face.
That way, there's less chance of something being taken (accidentally or purposefully) out of context.
But this blog isn't about me, or about the Chronicle or about our contract negotiated in 2005. It's about whether or not a union makes sense for BANG employees.
Anyone who'd like to meet with me and talk about the Guild, please e-mail me at CTUAN@aol.com
Mike C:
*****
As I've told SF Media Guy previously, I'm happy to address the issues he raises with anyone -- particularly BANG folks -- face to face.
*****
Sorry Mike, but that doesn't cut it and you know it.
You and your associates at the union have some 'splainin to do.
What's wrong with investigating your track record and defending it in an open forum? You and the other union leaders in San Francisco carefully and calculatedly made sure to shield the newsroom-based members of the union from job cuts so you could get the contract approved. You know full well that the bulk of the voting members in the summer of 2005 were in the news room -- which made it easier to get an approval of the contract.
Mike C:
*****
That way, there's less chance of something being taken (accidentally or purposefully) out of context
*****
How's this going to be taken out of context? I posted the full and relevant quote that YOU provided the Associated Press in July 2005.
Your only response is platitudes and dark suggestions of things being taken out of context.
I will find other venues on the Internet and in Bay Area Usenet and discussion groups to bring up this issue. I will find relevant discussions at local online newspapers and press clubs to post my questions.
I will continue to do so until you provide a substantive answer and explanation for your actions as president of the SF Media Guild.
Your guild only delayed the day of reckoning at the Chronicle.
Just ask the 25 percent of the newsroom that this year was shown the door, or left before being shoved into the street by Frank Vega, despite your platitudes and contracts.
Nothing is being taken out of context. This is the Internet, isn't it? Is space limited somehow?
You know it isn't.
I'm a little confused about why SFMediaguy is ranting about the Chron's contract here. Whatever.
Post a Comment