Friday, December 15, 2006

Divide and Conquer is nothing new. The Company has been doing this to us for years. By discriminating against "strong union supporters" in the form of restricting access to their Anti-Employee meetings, they create yet another example of division amongst our peers.

It's not that we are "strong" supporters" but rather we will dispute their lies and make their message ineffective. That is why they prefer we not be present while they weave their web of deceit.

What do they have to hide?
Everything! Most of their information is not intended to educate but rather confuse and invoke fear! They are not trying to save "US" from the big bad Union, They are trying to save themselves from the big bad Union!

Does their decision to eliminate certain individuals from meetings make you wonder why? Russ Newton should not speak for me and assume I'm not interested in listening to what they are telling you all. I have a responsibility to know everthing they say and do in order to provide an oppossing Union perspective on their comments.

Management resorts to tactics such as this when they become desperate and are unsure of just how strong we are. I will make it easy for them, because we all know they come to our site often:
"WE ARE A MAJORITY" and not deterred by your feeble attempts to silence our voices! Your decision to discriminate us has only made our voice louder and increased the size of our audience. Thank you, and continue to hold meetings with, or without the strong union supporters because we gain more support and strength everytime you do.


Anonymous said...

Why doesn't the Tribunes "Union Free" website have an area for comments? Why are we forced to swallow "their" point of view without response on their site? I'm beginning to think they are afraid to hear responses or questions from anonymous employees that have not made up their mind.
Management says in their meetings that the presspersons do not need a union. I still have not heard a reasonable reason why. Are they afraid it might be harder to sell The Los Angeles Times with a union pressroom? Is management concerned that the union demands might "cut" into profits, therefore cutting into upper managements pay or bonuses?
The "We don't need a third party" responses from management have me kind of puzzled. If Tribune is the first party and the union is the third party, then who is the second party? Can it really be the employees?
They said that things could be worse with a union, be better or stay the same. Brilliant.
It seems like that when Tribune wants to increase value or profits, they don't come up with some new marketing scheme or buy an up and coming business ( see You Tube or My Space ), they just cut profits from their biggest profit provider: The Los Angeles Times. Is this true?
Do our profits help pay for other Tribune contracts with union pressrooms regarding benefits or predetermined pay increases or bonuses ? Have the Tribune "union" presspersons caught up to us in salary after we had been paid well for many years to keep the union out ? Are we 20 percent of Tribunes overall profit?
Our supervisors in the pressroom look concerned. They wear their assigned "Vote No" t- shirts and hats but they have no answers. Ask them what they would do in our shoes. See if you get a truthful response. Or just the prescribed company rhetoric. How will the vote affect our supervisors ?
What if Tribune breaks up and doesn't sell the L.A Times. Will we be okay in the future?

These are questions that I have.

When it comes time to vote, be educated and vote what's best for you and your family,your fellow employees and the future our "craft".
The vote date is getting close. Let's hear some talk.

Anonymous said...

I think people get concerned by this "third party" nonsense. There are only two parties the company and the union. The people are the union.

Anonymous said...

I think people get confused by this "third party" nonsense. There are only two parties, the company and the union. The people are the union.

Anonymous said...


ADD This