GUILD LEADER
| Vol XIl, Issue 9 | TNG/CWA Local 31041 | January 24, 2001 |
Union 'Disappointed' Too
|
Status report NEGOTIATIONS: In the past two weeks, company officials rebuffed efforts to bring them back to the table. Our lawyer again approached the company's lawyer about bargaining and was told the company's stance remains unchanged. It has been 365 days since the company last made a bargaining offer. NLRB CHARGES: A hearing on the company's 20 violations of federal labor law is scheduled to start April 2. LISTSERV: Fifty-eight people are now members of the Guild's lively on-line discussion group. If your dues are paid in full and you have access to non-company e-mail, you can join the listserv by e-mailing Tony DePaul at tonydepaul@aol.com. Include your phone number. UPCOMING EVENTS: Guild Follies, Feb. 23. For ticket information, contact Tracy Breton in the newsroom or call the Guild office at 421-9466. |
Guild renews proposal for Journal-union open forum;
counters paper's threats with new unfair labor charges
Spurning the company's harsh tone in letters both to Journal employees
and to the union, the Guild today responded by renewing its proposal for
a joint forum, in which company and union leaders would discuss contract
negotiations.
"Although we
currently disagree with you on many issues," wrote Executive Board
member Brian Jones in a letter on behalf of the union panel, "we
do share your stated desire to see this painful disagreement come to an
end, and we are searching for constructive ways to do so. This kind of
forum might help.''
However, at the same
time, the Guild filed a new unfair labor practices charge with federal
officials, alleging that the company's letters improperly threatened union
members for exercising their rights in pursuing ways to conclude negotiations.
The union maintains
that by threatening to revise its current contract offer because of the
union'sfiling of unfair labor practice charges and because of its exploratory
efforts about a circulation boycott, the company again had violated federal
labor law.
The forum was suggested
earlier this month by the Guild as a means of having the 500 members of
the bargaining unit hearing directly from officials on both sides of the
negotiations, which have been on going for more than a year.
Darrell M. West, the
Brown University political scientist, has agreed to be a moderator if
such a forum were to take place. The Guild has proposed the session be
held at a neutral setting, with members allowed to ask questions of both
sides.
But responding to
the Guild, Mark T. Ryan, Journal senior vice president, charged that the
union's leadership has not been "involved in any continuing attempt
to secure a fair contract."
He said the company's
offer has clearly been explained, and said the only problem is the "failure"
of Guild leaders to recognize what's in workers' best interests. Further,
he said the company feared the Guild would pounce on any statements made
in the forum for ammunition for fresh unfair labor practice charges.
The Guild's letter
stated the forum proposal came from rank-and-file members who want to
hear the company's side, and that the Guild purpose was to advance understanding
and hopefully, move toward bargaining resolution.
"We believe the
unfair labor practice charges that we've filed in the past have been warranted,
and that it's the union's obligation to defend our case,'' Jones wrote.
"But we are not looking for fresh material, nor do we expect to find
any at such a forum."
Ryan closed his letter
with a threat: "In addition, our final offer was made almost a year
ago. We are now reviewing its continued availability based on your most
recent actions." In response, the Guild filed its latest unfair labor
practice charge.
Ryan's threat was
similar to one made by Howard G. Sutton, Journal publisher, who had castigated
the Guild in a Jan. 15 letter to all Journal workers, complaining of the
Guild's filing of earlier labor law charges, and of its work in preparing
for a potential readers' boycott.
Sutton had complained
about a letter mailed to 10,000 members of Council 94, American Federation
of State, County & Municipal Employees, (AFSCME) asking them to sign
pledge cards and promising not to buy the paper if the Guild declared
a boycott.
The publisher denied
that the company is trying to break the union, and he accused the union
of trying to "hurt every employee."
"We are reviewing
our current offer in light of your leadership's most recent action,''
Sutton said. "I cannot impress on you enough how disappointed I am.''
The Guild currently
is distributing pledge cards to 80,000 members of AFL-CIO affiliated unions,
as well as other labor organizations.
After a sufficient
number of cards are returned, the Executive Board will ask the Guild membership
whether it wants to authorize a boycott. If so, the board hopes that even
the possibility of a boycott will help conclude negotiations. But if that
doesn't happen, the union would then consider declaring one.
As to the proposed
forum, Executive board members this past Monday authorized a letter to
Sutton asking him to reconsider the idea.
Board members also
said the publisher had misunderstood the reasons why the Guild has had
to file unfair labor practice charges and to lay foundations for a potential
reader boycott.
"The Guild has
made numerous efforts to conclude negotiations, revising its contract
proposal twice and making off-the-record attempts at settlement,'' commented
Tim Schick, Guild administrator. "But it's been rebuffed repeatedly
and forced by the company to take legal and tactical steps.''
John Hill, secretary
of the union, said that it seems that the only thing that the company
agrees with the Guild is its expression of "disappointment."
Said Hill: "We're disappointed, too."
|
|
THE
JOHN KIFFNEY AWARD
TNG/CWA Local 31041
270 Westmister St., Providence, Rhode Island 02903
401-421-9466 | Fax: 401-421-9495
png@riguild.org