Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Media / News Bites Guild Rejects Concessions
Posted by Michael Miner on 09.15.09 at 11:35 PM
Newspaper Guild members from the Sun-Times met Tuesday night and by virtually a 4 to 1 margin rejected a package of concessions they'd been told they'd have to make it they wanted the sale of the Sun-Times Media Group to go through.
Here's the motion that was voted on:
The membership of the Sun-Times Unit rejects the Company’s Memorandum of Agreement and Settlement that guts our contract and takes away most rights that protects our members. The membership orders the Executive Director to communicate this vote to the company.
The Guild Sun-Times Unit further states that the Union is willing to bargain with the company on provisions that would help the company survive but not willing to give up all the rights of our members.
The motion was approved by a vote of 83 to 22.
"Basically, this is not against Tyree, or anything," said executive director Tom Thibeault. speaking of financier James Tyree, who organized a group of investors who have offered to buy the assets of the bankrupt media group for about $25 million. "It just comes down to what they planted in front of us, which is something we couldn't take. It basically gave us nothing. If we voted for this, we voted to have no union.
"They made it very clear [the concessions they demanded concerning] jurisdiction, seniority, and work rules couldn’t be touched. And that’s the heart of the contract. Those had to go." Thibeault stressed that by "they" he was not speaking of Tyree directly. He meant the media group's present leadership, in particular interim CEO Jeremy Halbreich, who, Thibeault said, is expected to stay on under Tyree and run the company.
Thibeault went on, "The second part of our motion says we’re willing to sit down and work with the company — let's talk. Talk can't be one way. It's not a one-way direction. A good part of the meeting was 'why can't we have some meaningful negotiations?' And the answer was, 'I don’t know. They don’t want it.'"
They weren't negotiations, but over the past few months, the guild did have a series of informal meetings with Halbreich and other media group managers. Thibeault told me he thought some respect was shown for the union's point of view, and that Tyree, though never present, was being kept in the loop. Yet when the formal package of concessions arrived last Friday "we were floored. It didn't look anything like we thought it would." Now Thibeault says he wants to talk to the next owner directly. "Bring Tyree to the table!" he said. "You want to bargain — we'll be at the table. We'll be there 24 hours a day 7 days a week. I have never had him across the table the entire time. We met with the company [Monday] and we went down each and every item, and basically the company said we'd be willing to take something back to Tyree but he'll cut our heads off. What the hell kind of bargaining is this?"
Thibeault said the guild units had been led to believe by Halbreich that if a single guild unit voted against the company's terms, Tyree would walk away from the deal, leaving the media group to its fate. But on Monday the Gary unit rejected the concessions by a vote of 17 to 1. Tyree didn't walk. "My understanding was that he was still there today," Thibeault said.
Thibeault indicated that if Tyree would explain to the guild why he needs all these concessions to buy the media group, and let the guild help figure out how to satisfy him, he'd find the guild easier to deal with. But unions hate to feel owners are shoving something down the workers' throats. That's why they exist — to fight back.
Comments (174)
Showing 1-50 of 174
IAMNOTCOOKED:
"Majorities Guild/union members have voted against concessions: not the guild."
Even scarier. I want to know if there is an overarching strategy in this process, for the good of the all. Because if people vote 'no' out of fear they will lose their job under the New Boss, they've already lost. At least bargain rationally and focus on monetary concessions -- what really counts.
Are work rules really the type of thing to squabble about when real jobs are on the line?
like
dislike
We can probably expect managers and non-union employees to point fingers at guild members come Wednesday morning.
And yes, it absolutely sucked having management try to cleverly hang everyone else's job, not to mention the whole company's future, on the guild vote: Don't forget that we too, may have voted ourselves out of jobs, so don't think our vote was painless.
But if you're looking to point fingers, look no further than Halbreich, Rilea and Surkamer, who have enabled Jim Tyree into thinking this abomination of a proposal would actually have flown with the Sun-Times guild.
Now gentlemen, let's sit down and really talk about staying alive.
As a rank-and-file Guild member, I hope Mr. Tyree understands that the majority of Guild members who voted down these concessions did not do so lightly. We are THRILLED that our beloved newspaper has a buyer. This is the best news we've had in a long time. I can't speak for everyone, but I'll say most Guild members I've spoken to would willingly take a pay cut to make Mr. Tyree's deal happen.
But the guys in upper management decided that wasn't enough. Not only are we supposed to give up 15 percent of our pay (19 percent of actual pay if we decide to keep our retirement) -- they insist that we also need to give up our severance and seniority and pretty much every shred of worker protection we have. And then to top it off, they lay the jobs of 1,800 people at our feet as some sort of guilt trip or scare tactic. To me, that is unreasonable and mean-spirited.
It would have been so easy to get this whole thing done had they kept the discussion to pay issues only and not decided to go for broke and bust the union. Management could have channeled the good will that was felt across the company upon the news of Mr. Tyree's offer -- but instead they decided to use scare tactics. They wound up radicalizing otherwise middle-of-the-road people.
I for one love the Sun-Times and want it to succeed more than anyone. Please, for everyone's sake, let's start over with something REASONABLE.
I wonder if the guild has any clue as to how much their non-union colleagues have sacrificed over the past 9 years since Hollinger bought the Sun-Times and the other pubs. They've endured layoffs, pay cuts, benefit cuts and a pay cut and a cessation of contributions to 401k plans. For the guild to talk about pensions speaks volumes. Nobody has a pension anymore, except, I guess, the guild. They've been living in a fantasy land for a long time and reality has come knocking. For them to talk about bargaining is equally ludicrous. Successful, or even practical collective bargaining is predicated on a company's ability to at least stay in business. The company is bankrupt so it's a mystery as to what there is left to bargain with. Too bad the guild thinks it can bargain with the jobs of their non-union colleagues.
lookitup23: Oh please. I just said in my above post that at least some of us are expecting to take a *19 percent* pay cut!! Did you miss that?????
You are falling perfectly into the union vs. non-union trap they have laid for all of us. It's sick, really, how upper management is pitting worker against fellow worker. Don't fall for it, PLEASE.
Believe me, we are not the bad guys.
lookitup23: And we'd be taking that 19 percent to keep the company alive for YOU, too -- DUH!
CSTGuildmember:
Would you at least concede that this is no time for you to be arguing that you guys should continue to receive pensions? As Lookitup23 mentioned, virtually no private corporations still offer pensions in this day and age. The few that have continued to do so recently, such as the auto companies, have suffered the consequences. It just doesn't work to offer pensions if you expect to have even a minimal level of certainty in your cost structure. You cannot operate a business with a pension system. The idea that this is even debated with a company in such desperate financial shape is unbelievable. You might convey more credibility if you would concede this. Then people might take you a little more seriously when you talk about the other things in the contract that you are concerned about.
IAC, every Guild member is/was willing to go to the table and negotiate these ludicrous requirements set forth by the company, supposedly acting on behalf of James Tyree. Guild members all know and agree that they can give up a couple of things, but what they're asking for is completely unreasonable. It's like handing them a pile of smelly turds and saying "Here's what's for dinner. Dig in or don't eat." What would you do?
To IAC, Michael or whoever you are:
This is about busting the union, plain and simple. We would like something reasonable. Even those of us more moderate members were quite frankly offended by this overreaching proposal and these heavy-handed scare tactics.
I just don't get how anyone can call virtually any offer made by a company in STMG's position to be unreasonable and ludicrous. They have been bleeding cash for years. Mostly, it has been in the millions of dollers per week. The majority of financial analysts believe that the industry is headed towards a dismal future. And STMG is in the even worse position of having stronger competitors in its market (virtually no other newspaper company has to deal with that). Many experts were astonished when Tyree agreed to purchase the company. Nobody else is willing to do so. You will still be receiving saleries that are at or above the median in this country. And Tyree isn't dismantiling your health or retirement benefits. He will simply be converting your pensions to 401k benefits, which will put you in line with what most people in the country receive. None of this strikes me as unreasonable given your employer's desperate situation. Strong sacrifices need to be made to allow the company to put itself in a postion where it can thrive in the future. Then if and when that happens you guys can talk about receiving better compensation. But you need to allow the management to be able to dig the company out of its tremendously deep hole before that can happen.
Michael: I don't think you heard me. I understand the financial predicament. I'm glad we have a buyer. I'm willing to give up pay. I am not willing to give up seniority, severance and these other protections that don't cost the company a penny unless they're planning layoffs. This isn't only about money; it's about busting the union.
If the company goes out of business the union will be busted then too. Obviously, the question you have to ask yourselves (and I'm sure you are) is how far Tyree is willing to negotiate. Do you really believe that the demands presented differ that much from the point in which he would walk away from the deal? Given the state of the company, I really don't think so. After all, nobody else was willing to purchase the whole company.
I am not Michael Cooke. I have never met Michael Cooke. I am rather baffled as to why there have been several people who think that I am Michael Cooke. Obviously, there is some type of issue that people at the Sun-Times have with him.
Stop picking on the Guild, you have other Unions that are not going to agree to the Tyree mandate.
Much of the anti-union discussion here -- and that's exactly what it is, my friends -- is based on a simple reality: This historically has been a strong union that has won higher pay and better benefits for its members than most people who work in this industry have. And there is great resentment over that fact to the point where those "without" believe a strong union should relinquish all of the important rights it has won over the years even if that means that every one of its members becomes vulnerable.
It may be counter-intuitive to some to suggest that those who are not unionized and who have had to weather much harsher conditions are expressing a certain short-sighted selfishness, but that's the case to me. It's important to note that no one can claim greed on the part of this union; the most important issues at hand for the S-T unit and the reason for its vote last night appear not to be over severe pay cuts, but over maintaining some semblance of security for its rank-and-file. The dematnd to completely obliterate seniority, transfer and jurisdiction language in its contract has to be met with resistance by any viable union or you might as well not have a union. And that, I suppose, would be just fine with some here. So the next logical step in this response is to discuss why maintaining a viable union within this troubled industry and within the labor force in general is so important and how unions in general have proved to be beneficial to all workers. But I'll leave that for another time.
What I will suggest is that some of these posts have mischaracterized the S-T union's position. Note that this union, and other unions within the Guild, have said yes to all of the severe cuts that they have been asked for up to this point. And it's clear that this union is willing to continue to give back, to work in a spirit of cooperation with the company to address its understandable concerns about being able to survive in an industry that is most definitely in crisis.
But there has been a strategic propaganda campaign to place maximum responsibility on the Guild -- and most notably the Sun-Times unit -- for the fate of the entire company and its 1,800+ jobs. To call that unfair and textbook union bashing/busting is an understatement. This process has been designed to make unions the bad guys and to pit worker against worker.
What some here say about the Sun-Times benefits is true; they're more than generous compared to what average employees have in this industry. Most newspaper employees no longer have an active pension, true; but it's simply misguided to suggest that maintaining the union's pension is what last night's vote was about. On the same hand, it's equally wrong to expect union members to come to this blog and say they are willing to give up that pension -- to bargain it away in public. That process should take place over a bargaining table.
Finally, I fully disclose that I am a Guild unionized newspaper employee who has not enjoyed anywhere near the same benefits as Sun-Times members have. In the past, many of our own union members have expressed frustration about the unfairness of that situation, especially since there was a belief that our company has been more profitable and has been "paying" for the Sun-Times to exist.
But please understand that that position is not directed at union members of the Sun-Times. We don't begrudge the Sun-Times unit the pay and benefits it has fought hard over the years to win. Rather, we have wanted to take our "fight" to the company to win more equitable conditions for ourselves. For all of these reasons, I fully stand behind my brothers and sisters at the Sun-Times and the vote they took last night.
There are so many layers to this but it all does come down to trust. I was not at Monday's meeting between the Company and the Guild but one person who was summed up the company's message as: Trust us.
I think the reason that two units have voted no is they don’t trust the honesty of the offer or the people presenting it. There is no trust in the ability of the migrated leadership of the company with Tyree’s (generously offered) lifeline to survive the papers.
Post-Tribune votes NO, which should have ended it. But Halbrech’s letter is sent in advance of the ST vote.
Sun-Times votes NO. The next vote is Pioneer’s and Mr. Halbrech has scheduled a ‘Must attend’ town hall meeting for today; but is only inviting those people covered by contract, not all pioneer employees, different ‘town’ I guess.
What will be talked about? The deal is gone, Right? I guess we can’t even trust that.
How can we trust any of this.
Trust Us?
Meh-
The point I am trying to make: The guild is the sum of its parts, Members mostly, many volunteering as leaders to help it work, and a couple of guys in a little office working long hours for moderate pay (They make less then one of our part board members.) because they believe in what they are doing. The guild is not the boogey man here, there is no thug in the shadows.
I have worked, managed, at companies that do not have a union, they didn’t because the people running the company treated their employees fairly and honestly. People pay dues to have a union. Nobody spends money they don’t feel they have to. You only hire a lawyer when you can’t work it out without one.
Trust..
If Halbrech and Tyree think that they have been fair, and really want to save the Sun-Times, then they have the court process to overturn the Union contracts. So why all this drama?
Just found this: "But Tyree says he's holding out until the end of the month. He says he does not want to negotiate because the investor group will already be losing money taking on the paper." on NPR's site.
He's a smart businessman, I guess there must be something to hole out for, Eh?
Here's a thought: Does STMG have enough non-union employees to run the whole sebang i.e. all the papers. Or, is the strategy to do away i.e. get rid of all the guild members and staff the whole operation up with the legions of out-of-work journos out there who will work for anything? Maybe that's the plan. From Tyree's own quotes today in the ST it looks like he's willing to hang around until the end of the month but not bargain. If he retreats from that position he weakens himself and his partners plus he's ostensibly lied to the very paper he may some day own. Rod Serling (RIP) would have a field day with this whole situation.
First Negotiate THEN compromise.
Negotiations are rarely successful if you give away-the-store right outta the gate.
-- MrJM
On many days, the Sun-Times is the best paper in town. The ONLY reason that is the case is because of the exceptional work performed by guild members. Despite years of declining working conditions, we're still near the top of our game.
Management? They can't meet a deadline in bankruptcy court or anywhere else. They can't even deliver the paper. After a decade, they have yet to figure out how to offer advertisers a single platform to reach the entire Chicago market.
And what does it say about management when employees who love their work and have mortgages and families would rather have no job at all rather than give these guys unfettered control.
It boils down to this: I know my pension is probably gone. I am willing to take pay drastic pay cuts. But seniority, severance and work rule changes that anti-union people mention so lightly in this forum — are code for laying off nearly half of the newsroom and partly replacing us with others making still much less.
If that happens, the Sun-Times won't be the best paper — on any day of the week — and probably never have a shot at making a profit.
not too sure how this all works, but suspect tyree & co. is waiting until 9/29 before taking their offer off the table to give the unions more time to wake up & smell the decaf.
can the union - meaning the newspaper guild - call for a 2nd vote, like on 9/28 @ 11:30pm when they finally realize this guy ain't kidding? or will we soon most likely be a one daily newpaper town?
(sorry, make that a 2 daily newspaper town - keep forgetting there are people who actually think red eye is a newspaper)
I think there is a whole lot of delusion going on here. El Scribo, "the Sun-Times won't be the best paper — on any day of the week — and probably never have a shot at making a profit..." This is such a ludicrous statement. The ST hasn't made a profit in years. Any belief that suddenly the public is going to recognize the value of your journalism and flock to your paper is silly. MRJM, "First Negotiate THEN compromise. Negotiations are rarely successful if you give away-the-store right outta the gate." It also is hard to negotiate when you have absolutely NO LEVERAGE!!!! What don't you get about that?! It is one thing for labor to negotiate when management needs labor to continue to produce a product that makes money. For some reason, everyone seems to have a hard time understanding that that is not the case. As an outsider who has followed this story with interest, it seems pretty clear to me: Accept the miserable terms offered to save a failed company and continue to be newspaper men or reject them and spend the next year at the Billy Goat talking about the good ol' days and how great the Sun Times used to be.
If the Guild has "absolutely NO LEVERAGE!!!!," it will find out over the next 13 days. Meanwhile, there's no reason not to let this play out and see if they can get Tyree to the table.
Most likely, there is some leverage as the STMG execs try to save their bonuses. It's the execs, not Tyree, who have been meeting with the Guild chairs.
And the conditions set forth, along with the likely high number of layoffs, leaves much of the Guild membership seeing rejecting the conditions as a little to lose proposition. Accepting the miserable terms leaves many in little better shape than plunging toward liquidation.
If could be that the Guild buckles in the end game. It could be that the court forces something very like the rejected conditions on them anyway. It could be that they force liquidation. It could be that execs looking to preserve bonuses convince Tyree he can live with something a little less draconian.
But until it gets to the end game, there is no reason at all for the Guild to simply accept the conditions set forth.
"Accept the miserable terms offered to save a failed company and continue to be newspaper men or reject them and spend the next year at the Billy Goat talking about the good ol' days and how great the Sun Times used to be." FTW!!!
The guild is playing roulette here with more than half the company's jobs. You have no leverage yet still think you can save your precious pensions. Who has those anymore? I work at a group of non-union papers and know that a union paper to the south is heavily babied with nearly twice as many employees as our diminished non-union staff has. Oh, and we're putting out ten times more content. Time to sack up. Union days are over. Give in or lose your job and get in line with the creditors. Good luck with that.
FVP, if you think this is all about the pension, or even that it's the major point of contention, you haven't followed this at all.
Also, it's an interesting definition when "sack up" means just give in instead of fight.
Jayge. They did the same thing to us. Took away severence and then two weeks later laid off whoever they wanted. It's not like the union is the first to deal with this. If you think that's the case, you "haven't followed this at all" either.
No, this union isn't the first to deal with it. Doesn't mean they should just give up. If they lose, they lose, but there's no reason to just surrender before the process is played out.
Yeah, but if "they" lose, everyone loses. It's not just the union's loss. What about everyone else?
The Guild can only represent its own members. The execs --- they're responsible for the entire company. But the unions --- the Guild is responsible only for the Guild, the Teamsters for the Teamsters, the pressmen for the pressmen. Non-union employees declined representation when they chose not to organize.
No matter. We'll all be on the unemployment line together. It's just some of us made the choice to be there, right? No one ever gave the non-union people a choice about representation.
There were efforts by the Guild to unionize the non-union papers, but they were always voted down. If you weren't around for those votes, then surely some of your older anti-union colleagues were. That is why you don't have a say in this now. Blame them.
I doubt this ends in liquidation. Too many rich folks with took big a stake in making a sale happen. It certainly will end with more people on the unemployment line, mostly the union people who are targeted by the proposed work rules. It's the Guild's duty to minimize the carnage, and that can only be done by fighting, not caving in.
As for choices about representation, every group of employees has a choice. They can either organize, or not. Those who don't forgo representation.
Now it is time for the common sense vote. Tyree's group has rejected any changes to their proposal. The next time the union meets they are not voting on concessions. They are voting on whether they want jobs or unemployment checks. Simple choice you would think.
:shrug. Digging in and re-iterating their position is pretty normal. If they're still re-iterating it 13 days from now, the game changes. But right now, meh.
This whole fiasco doesn't make me wish I was in a union. Who wants to have responsibility for these kinds of decisions? No, I don't get a vote and management just tells me what I have to accept. But that also means I'm not casting a vote that could cost 1,800 jobs. In the last year we've had two rounds of layoffs, a week of furlough and a pay cut. We didn't have to make any agonizing votes with brutal consequences; we just complained about it and moved on. Those of us who are still here get paid a little less and work a little more, but we still have jobs and don't have to be out there looking in a job market with 10 percent unemployment. I can honestly say that the people laid off were the most expendable and least productive ones, those who would have been protected if we'd had a union while more productive people would have lost their jobs. And losing their higher salaries probably meant fewer people had to lose their jobs overall. But I'll gladly let the management have responsibility for the cuts because that guilt goes with the big salaries they earn. The union papers haven't faced such drastic cuts, but it comes back to haunt them now. I don't envy the guild members having to decide the fate of all with this vote. They say how unfair it is that everything is being put on their shoulders like this, but as I see it, it's the other side of the coin of the benefits they receive from union membership.
I'll just remind everyone who has made lofty pro-union speeches that one of the reasons (though certainly not the only or even the most important one, by any means) that the company is in so much trouble is because it had to give in to the demands of unions over the years. I'm not saying that some of these demands were not reasonable when the company was doing well. But the reality is that unions hamper the ability of a company to make flexible decisions to operate the business in the best manner possible. It drains resources. If the company is always successful and profitable that this doesn't really matter that much. But if it ends up in desperate financial ruin, you have to recognize that the burdon imposed by union contracts do not help the situation. It certainly is not the only reason for the company's collapse. Obviously, the major reason is Conrad Black's despicable conduct. But it has done its part. I don't think it would be a bad thing if the union is rendered irrelevant.
It appears that if Tyree ends up at some point offering a better deal (which I am not sure at all will happen) he will be critisisized for not being honest about whether his original offer was final. But, of course, if he had decided where he thought the negotiations would eventually end and made an offer that was really in-line with his take-it or leave-it point he would be critisised for not being willing to negotiate. So he cannot win. If you are going to have a union you have to realize that negotiations are by nature an advisorial process. There is going to be a certain amount of deception.
Jayge and Byline Bill, I don't think you'd want me in your club. I want to keep my job.
So do we. And Tyree's concessions mean 65 of us assuredly would NOT be keeping our jobs. Thus the pickle we're in.
Everyone wants to keep their jobs. You think the best way to accomplish that is to knuckle under without forcing the issue. I don't.
This 65 percent losing their jobs is ridiculous. Anyone in any of our newsrooms know we are at bare-bones staffing now. We criticize Tyree for scare tactics, but it seems the union has the market cornered on false alarms.
LLL: Suppose you were one of those 65. Suppose you were a Guild member who is sure to be first to go when layoffs begin. You and 64 others are told to line up and shoot yourselves because SUPPOSEDLY that is the ONLY way to save these other jobs.
Now, LLL, how would you react to the guilt trip and scare tactics that are being used here?
The sad thing is that most Guild members will agree to far deeper financial sacrifices than the non-union people like you. I can't speak for all, but I'm bracing for a 15 to 19 percent pay cut (15 to 19 percent! -- think about that; it's insane!). And I would take that if it would make this company survive. But you can't expect Guild members to commit suicide, which is what this unreasonable offer demands of us.
Wake up. You are being manipulated by upper management to blame your fellow workers. Just take a minute and think about what you would do in my position: Would you kill yourself? Or would you hold out hope for a REASONABLE deal?
An open letter to CEO Jeremy Halbriech, Publisher John Barron, Editor Don Hayner and Managing Editor Andrew Herrmann:
Despite what some of the antiunion posters here may think, the pay cut and the elimination of the pension aren’t the core of this dispute. What many of us in the Guild can’t swallow are the work rules that allow the company to layoff without regard to seniority, pay little severance and then assign the work to lesser-paid employees at will.
Management has talked about the idea of a “universal media desk,” so it appears that the first ones to go would be the copy editors and layout staff -- BUT the same language means Sun-Times photographers and reporters can also be laid off at will and replaced with cheaper workers. (You know, I’m sure the bean counters think: “Anyone with a cell phone can take pictures and anyone who Tweets is a reporter.”) So it’s not clear how many of our jobs would really be saved by approving the Tyree proposal.
What is clear is that the proposal was heavily influenced by management – Tyree has said he’s not a newspaper guy, he didn’t come up with any “universal media desk.” This is not the first time management has targeted the copy desk for elimination; in January we were all told we were going to be outsourced, with our jobs going to India or Canada. Saner heads (and Guild strength) apparently prevailed then.
Sending Sun-Times copy to Aurora isn’t quite as bad an idea as the India/Canada plan, but it still betrays a fundamental lack of respect for the importance of copy editors. In January we were told we were expendable because we don’t produce content, we just present it to readers.
1) Don’t underestimate the importance of correctly spelled, coherently arranged and fact-checked stories. The credibility of the entire newspaper and every story in it can take a hit from just one mistake. The copy desk is not peripheral to the paper, we’re a key part of it. What differentiates a respected newspaper from the average blog is the editing and design that makes the information and opinion accurate and compelling.
2) Don’t underestimate the importance of an attractive layout on the page. In the Internet age, packaging and presentation are more crucial than ever. It’s the content producers who are struggling in the current media environment while those who primarily repackage others’ content (Drudge, Google, Huffington …) flourish.
3) Don’t underestimate the talents of the copy desk. We should have been given Web training earlier and more intensively; we already read the stories for print, we should be writing Web headlines and posting news routinely. Instead, management’s longtime pipe dream of keeping the Web staff nonunion meant all Internet role were kept away from the copy desk for far too long. But it’s not too late to fix that. If you’re so dead-set on eliminating the standalone copy desk, keep it at the Sun-Times but merge it with the Web staff; don’t send it away from the reporters and line editors who we work with hand-in-hand.
Jeremy, John, Don and Andrew: If the best idea management can come up with for saving the Sun-Times is shipping copy editing to the suburbs, you’re not trying hard enough. A poorly edited paper has even less of a chance of long-term survival. And as a copy editor, the lack of respect that these outsourcing plans show me and my profession is more than disappointing.
When will the guild wake up and see reality? I know some of you cringe at the thought of surviving on you own merit but that's the deal.
CSTGuildMember- You are talking about a life vs a job...lets compare apples to apples then talk. It's not what management is telling us, the reality is we all are going to be out of jobs beacause of your vote.
I can see the guild members now quaking in their shoes at the thought of survining on their own merit.
So the real problem here is that all animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others? Oh, that is a shame. The Aurora people are probably just as capable of copy editing as the Chicago people. They just don't get paid as much, and they are willing to work a little harder.
So, LLL, I should give up my job so you can have yours. And I should do that why, exactly?
WAKE UP. You are being manipulated. Upper management is laughing their asses off while you workers attack your fellow workers. Don't you get it?
If you are that low-paid and abused, don't worry, LLL. You will be the first one re-hired when someone snaps up your paper in liquidation. You will have your job either way.
And hardworker: I absolutely can make it on my own merits. It's just that I can't abide by these scare tactics. No quaking here.
Related Stories
-
How a Little Pig Lipstick Saved the Sun-Times
After a grueling standoff, the union agrees to let the Sun-Times Media Group’s new owners do anything they want—almost.
- Oct 15, 2009
-
First Thing We Do, Let's Kill All the Columnists
Could less star power and more depth save the Sun-Times?
- Sep 17, 2009
Related User Lists
