Street gangs? Motorcycle toughs? Feuding hillbilly clans?
Nope, the New York Times:
The New York Times Co., which has threatened to shutter The Boston Globe, is seeking deep concessions from the Globe’s largest union that could include pay cuts of up to 20 percent, the elimination of seniority rules and lifetime job guarantees, and millions of dollars in cuts in company contributions to retirement and healthcare plans.
…
The list of possible concessions includes pay cuts, which could range from 5 to 20 percent, depending on what other cuts the union is willing to give up. For example, a pay cut could be lower if the union gives up paid holidays, union officials said.
Other concessions proposed by the Times Co. include the elimination of contributions to the pension fund and 401(k) retirement plans and a $1.5 million reduction in the company’s contribution to healthcare. The company also proposed the elimination of sick days, a 50 percent cut in severance pay for layoffs, and the lengthening of the workweek to 40 hours from 37.5.
Among the most controversial proposals are eliminating contract provisions that grant lifetime job protection to about 170 veteran Guild members and seniority rules that govern layoffs. Under the rules, the most recent hires are the first to be laid off.
Another management proposal seeks a one-time round of job cuts without regard to seniority, including those with job guarantees.
I like that approach to pay cuts and holidays: “Nice Easter ya got here. Shame if somethin’ happened to it.”
Can you imagine how much ink the Times would spill if any other employer tried these tactics? Walmart? Fuhgeddaboudit.
But the Globe isn’t just losing money: it’s hemorraging like a hemophiliac with a pesky case of ebola:
Without the union concessions and other cutbacks, the Globe is projected to lose $85 million this year, following a loss of about $50 million last year, according to an employee briefed on union discussions.
And how did those brilliant business minds as the Glob respond to this financial emergency?
Days after its corporate parent demanded $20 million in concessions from 10 unions, The Boston Globe late Tuesday said it is increasing the newsstand price of its daily paper to $1 from 75 cents in the metropolitan area – and to $3.50 from $2.50 on Sundays.
“While it is never easy to raise the price of the newspaper, we feel it is necessary under current economic conditions,” Globe spokesman Robert Powers was quoted as saying on the paper’s Web site.
The daily cover price will increase to $1.50 outside “Greater Boston,” the Globe said. The Sunday cover price will increase to $4 outside Greater Boston. The Sunday price had been $2.50 inside and outside the city zone.
Price increases of 33% to 60%—that’s sure to increase plummeting circulation.
Are we laughing at the Glob’s misfortune? Sort of, but if they’re not taking this seriously, why should we?
No, I take that back: some of them are serious. In a way:
The long list of union givebacks was greeted with anger, concern, and sadness by some 200 union members who attended the meeting.
There’s that “s” word again. It’s the perfect word to describe liberal disappointment and disillusionment: “I’m sad.” Aww…
PS: It ain’t just the Times bustin’ heads:
Newspaper owners across the country are using dire warnings and, in some cases, blunt threats about economic survival to press unions to make concessions on wages, benefits, and work rules. And it’s working.
Is the Times owned by the Sulzberger family or the Soprano family?