Tag Results for vote

Newsweek called it "the Interrupt-a-thon." Fox New's Bret Baier sat down with President Barack Obama this week, but was it an interview or an argument? Fox lovers say Baier was just trying to pin Obama down to specifics, but haters say he was rude and just trying to insert the network's conservative talking points.

Newspaper Guild members at the Boston Globe voted overwhelmingly to ratify a new contract that gives them relief from the draconian 23-percent wage cut imposed by the New York Times last month.

Boston.com is reporting that the vote was 366 for "yes" and 179 for "no."

The new contract will cut the average Guild worker's wages by 5.9 percent (9 percent when unpaid furlough days are factored in). Benefits and vacation will also be cut, driving the cost of family health care for the average employee from $1,17o to $5,492. Workers will also receive a lump-sum "mitigation payment" to defray some of the effects of the 23-percent wage cut.

The Times gets the $10 million on concessions it was seeking and the end to lifetime job guarantees (one interesting aspect of the vote: The number of "no" votes was almost exactly the number of lifetime job guarantee holders). The voter will no doubt kick off intense speculation on what happens next at the Globe in terms of ownership and expected staff reductions.

Dan K. has memos from Guild president Dan Totten, Globe Publisher Steve Ainsley, and Editor Marty Baron to staff below.

As Newspaper Guild members at the Boston Globe vote on a proposed new contract today, most observers and pundits are predicting a narrow win for the "yes" forces.

Given the fact that the new proposal gives Globe workers a chance to trade a 23-percent wage cut (the one imposed by the New York Times Co. last month after the Guild rejected the prior contract offer) for a reduction of 5.9 percent (9 percent when unpaid furlough days are factored in), a "yes" vote seems like a no-brainer. That's particularly true when you factor in the lump sum mitigation payments being offered to help with the hit Guild member's family budgets been taking.

But a recent e-mail sent to Guild members outlines the deep impact of benefit cuts in the new proposals and shows that the packages are much closer than they appear at first blush. The e-mail from Guild leadership, obtained by Dan Kennedy, details how family health insurance contributions for the average employee would jump from $1,170 to $5,492 annually. The analysis distributed by the Guild also assumes that Guild workers will reduce their 401(k) contributions from 10 percent of salary to 4 percent.

Dan quotes Poynter Institute business analyst Rick Edmonds saying Guild members face "a choice between a punch in the gut now or being slapped upside the head later." In short, will Guild workers vote their checkbook balance or their long-term financial plans?

And that's not the only short-term vs. long-term analysis they could be considering. Life, as the saying goes, is all about timing. And the time for the Times to get a "yes" is clearly now. The Guild? Maybe not so much.

With Monday's Boston Globe contract vote looming, the back and forth between the union and company is predictably heating up. After talking to folks I know at the Globe, my money's on a close "yes" vote, but don't hold me to it.

Our panelist/bloggers Dan Kennedy (Media Nation) and Adam Reilly (Don't Quote Me) both have the skinny on the internal debate over the new contract proposal. A minimum it would give Newspaper Guild members relief from the onerous 23 percent unilateral wage cut imposed by the Times after last month's rejection of the previous proposal.

Boston Globe political reporter Brian Mooney, who helped lead the "no" vote charge that defeated the last proposed contract between the Globe employees represented by the Newspaper Guild and the New York Times, is urging his colleagues to reject the latest tentative agreement.

Our friend Adam Reilly of the Boston Phoenix, who will be the guest panelist on "Beat the Press" this week, has Mooney's latest missive to his fellow Globies.

Meanwhile, three former colleagues I talked to this week (full disclosure: I worked for the Globe for nine years until joining WGBH last November) say they are actively avoiding going into the newsroom on Morrissey Boulevard as much as they can, preferring instead to write from home or from satellite bureaus where they can focus on the work and not the paper's troubles."The mood there is just awful," one longtime writer said. "It's too depressing."

The Guild votes again on July 20

The New York Times Company and the Newspaper Guild have reached a new pact that will go to a vote next month, Boston.com is reporting.

The new deal brings the average salary cut down to 5.9 percent, versus 8.4 percent for the contract rejected by workers earlier this month. The "no" vote prompted the Times to impose a 23 percent pay cut, which went into effect last week.

The new deal still gives Times officials the two key things they were looking for: $10 million in concessions and the elimination of lifetime job guarantees held by 170 or so Guild workers. The deal reportedly includes deeper cuts in beneifts to compensate for the smaller wage cut. The deal still includes a one-week unpaid furlough, Boston.com reports.

When is an impasse not an impasse? Or, as Alice would say, the Boston Globe contract negotiations are certainly getting curiouser and curiouser.

A second 13-hour-plus marathon bargaining session ended early this morning without an agreement, but with the Newspaper Guild and New York Times Company representatives agreeing to meet again on Monday.

The Boston Herald's Christine McConville reported that Guild president Dan Totten emerged from the session at about 5 a.m. and announced: "Talks are ongoing and we remain hopeful.”

Boston Globe management spokesman Bob Powers, meanwhile, e-mailed a statement confirming the Monday meeting. But his message also stated that: "The wage reduction of 23% remains in effect."

My question is this: Since the imposition of the 23 percent wage cut was based on the Times claim of a bargaining "impasse," how can Times officials be participating in marathon bargaining sessions yet asserting an impasse at the same time? Someone help me with this.

A meeting between New York Times Co. and Newspaper Guild officials that was supposed to have been a formality has stretched into talks that have gone on for more than six hours, various news outlets are reporting.

Boston.com is reporting that, although Times officials said they would only be there to discuss the mechanics of a 23 percent pay cut for Globe newsroom staffers and others represented by the Newspaper Guild, Guild leaders brought an "offer of resolution" to the meeting, which is being held in Weymouth.

The Herald is reporting that Newspaper Guild president Daniel Totten emerged from the meeting at 2:10 p.m. and announced: "We're talking."

The last update from either paper was at just before 8 p.m., about two and a half hours ago.

UPDATE: The Herald reported that the two sides were still going strong at 10:30 p.m., apparently fortified by the delivery of Chinese takeout.

Newspaper Guild members last week narrowly rejected a proposed contract that called for an 8.4 percent pay cut, a weeklong unpaid furlough, and significant givebacks on benefits and pensions.

Boston.com is reporting that the Newspaper Guild will present an "offer of resolution" - whatever that is - to the New York Times Company  when the two sides meet this morning to follow up on last weeks' contract rejection vote.

Times officials say that the meeting is just a formality so they can impose the 23 percent pay cut they say is necessary after the Guild rejected a package that included a smaller wage cut and significant concessions on benefits.

Union delegates are saying they hope they can convince the Times that, because last week's 277 to 265 vote was so close, small modifications to the deal could put it over the top if the Guild voted again. Guild officials are being tight-lipped about the exact details of the resolution offer.

No sooner did all the press pundits (myself included) declare the Globe un-sellable due to this week's Newspaper Guild contract rejection - and the ensuing labor strife and litigation - than stories began to pop up in the Herald and the Globe about potential local buyers for the paper.

Dan Kennedy does a nice job of rounding up what he calls the beginning of "silly season" on his Media Nation blog.

(BTW: Alex Jones, director of the Shorenstein Center at Harvard's JFK School of Government, gave me an interesting interview on this topic yesterday. Perhaps not surprisingly, former-New-York-Times-staffer Alex thinks the Globe workers blew it, while former-Globe-staffer Ralph thinks the New York Times blew it. Go figure. Stay tuned for the set-up piece to the Globe discussion for Alex's comments.)