Friday, September 22, 2006

"Employment at will"
While it is hoped that your employment with the Company will be mutually rewarding, your employment relationship with the Company is at-will.
This means that either you or the company may terminate this relationship at any time,
for reason, with or without cause or notice.
At-will employment also means that the Company may make decisions regarding other terms and conditions of employment at any time with or without cause or notice including but not limited to demotion, dicipline, promotion, transfer, compensation, benefits, duties and location of work. Any agreement for employment for any specified period of time or for any promises or commitments contrary to the foregoing can only be made by a company officer. Any such agreement that changes your at-will employment status must be explicit, in writing, and signed by both you and the Publisher of the Company to be enforcable.

Source: Los Angeles Times Employee Handbook

This is why you need to sign a card and vote yes!

3 comments:

nounionatlat said...

ronnie,ronnie,ronnie,
you poor misguided soul, although i do admire your tenacity and unyielding effort in a losing battle, I can only say "what a waste of time"! you and your "brothers before you" hank gomes, eddie enriquez, dave staley and the rest of the now "retired" union advocaters are sitting pretty enjoying their lives the the UNION FREE LA Times has provided for them through their non contractual Pension. Let's see the three named above probably worked about 90 years combined with no contract, no union dues, no shop steward, no strikes, no loss of wages etc.

What do you and your union buddies want? a contract that will what? put everything in writing! Wow what a comfort, I bet the 250 soon to be laid off pressmen at the New York Times love their contract!! at least they will know the order in which they will walk out the door!

Think long and hard, what are you willing to risk?, for you and ohh yeah the other pressman, and our families, just so you can have "a contract".

I wonder if I will see this on your blog? Freedom of speech and viewpoints RIGHT?

Ronnie Pineda said...

I have no problem giving you the opportunity to voice your opinion, although I always wonder why the non-union minded have a problem identifying themselves. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME! Everyone knows where I stand and I am not afraid to let it be known.

Could it be that you are management?

We have to be discerning about some comments when the person making them isn't willing to step into the light.
As long as this Management team is in charge we are all misguided!

This is FAR from a losing battle and IF you are actually a pressroom employee, I know you have not been to an Organizing meeting or you would know that.

The retirees you mention had the right motivation and were not self-serving either. There are those of us that genuinely care and fight for others.
Imagine all the benefits we could have retained had we listened to them back then! Anything lost since then would have been NEGOTIATED not TAKEN from us!

Let's wait and see what happens in New York. The company never tells you about the Negotiated buy-outs that Union members receive because they don't reflect what goes on here each time we have had a buy-out. Have you ever received any compensation for the additional work after a buy-out? NO!
I'm sure you would have turned down the $25,000.00 CASH that each pressroom employee received for staffing reductions at Newsday, Right? Wrong! We have never received anything but more work!

WE have thought long and hard about all of this and that is why WE want to negotiate a contract.

We are tired of being the battered wife in this relationship! Management abuses us, says their sorry and ask for forgivness only to turn around and do it over and over again. Stop allowing YOURSELF to be abused and defend yourself, that is if your are a pressroom employee........?

Far from misguided,
RONNIE,RONNIE,RONNIE

Anonymous said...

Ronnie,
The first staff reduction that Newsday went through, they were given $56,000 per person to sign the new contract.

It was in the Business section of the Times.
Hardly anyone saw it, even though I posted it in the press reelroom and it was there for a year till it faded away.

I guess that contract didn't have anything to do with it.

There was an error in this gadget

ADD This