Ratification Meeting Information

The Ratification Meeting has been scheduled for Monday, December 8, 2008 at 9:00 am in Room Salon 1 at the Crown Plaza Commerce Casino Hotel located in the City of Commerce. (interactive map).

Parking is free in the rear of the hotel by taking Tubeway Ave. on the west side of the hotel/casino.

I am diligently working on getting copies for review in advance of the meeting and hope to have an on-line version available here for download.

You must attend to vote.

Almost There! Negotiations Complete.

Negotiations have concluded and an over all Tentative Agreement was reached. We are scheduling a Ratification Meeting (DATE AND TIME TO BE ANNOUNCED) in Commerce at the Commerce Casino Crown Plaza Hotel where negotiations have been held. Meeting room and meeting time information will be made available and posted in the shops and here within the next couple of days.

This will take place within the next couple of weeks so it is imperative that everyone makes the necessary arrangements to insure their attendance at this important meeting.

Everyone should know by now that only those bargaining unit brothers and sisters that attend the ratification meeting may vote on the Overall Tentative Agreement (contract) as there is no such thing as an absentee ballot voting system in union contract ratification votes. That means that a majority of ONLY those that vote will determine whether or not the contract will be ratified.

I cannot stress the importance of attending this meeting and hope that everyone possible takes this opportunity to exercise their democratic right that we have only experienced here at The Times during organizing campaigns.

All of the details of the tentative agreements will be disclosed at the ratification meeting and The International and our Representatives have asked that we refrain from presenting the information at this time. It has been their experience that by the time the ratification meetings take place, a lot of misinformation and misinterpretations flourish among the bargaining unit spreading through the shops and fails to give an accurate depiction of the actual agreements. The bargaining committee agrees and asks for your patience once again. This will guarantee everyone the facts and prevent unnecessary rumors which we all know exist and have had to disseminate throughout this process. Please respect the International's request and allow the negotiation committee to fulfill this request by with holding any and all questions until the ratification meeting. Thank you in advance for your understanding.

The Negotiating Committee appreciates all the support and patience we have received from our Brothers and Sisters in both shops and thank all of you for the honor of representing our Los Angeles Times Pressroom Bargaining Unit in these historic Collective Bargaining Agreement Negotiations.

In Solidarity,
Brother Ronnie

SHOW ME THE MONEY!

Today's negotiations were mentally exhausting and frustrating to say the least. We received the company's response to our 10/30/08 economic proposal and were astonished to hear them reject practically every word when most everything we proposed wasn't a far leap from where we are currently in regards to wages, benefits and retirement. The company, as expected countered and we received the company's first economic proposal. My initial reaction was that they might as well had printed it on toilet paper because that is what it appropriately should be used for.

We knew that there was going to be cost containment language in their initial proposals but it was insulting to the committee and our representatives to see what they came to the table offering our bargaining unit. For them to even begin where they did, was a slap in the face to all who print this newspaper. We had earlier offered, in extremely good faith and with extreme flexibility, language that enables the company to reap long term savings going forward with the expectation of a fair wage increase and an affordable benefits package.

This was a bit of a surprise considering how urgent they've seemed to be to get a contract. We understand that it was their first proposal, and shot back our counter proposal with what we on the committee believed to be fair and pretty much in line with where we are now. It did include a sufficient annual wage increase, and the opportunity to actually generate retirement savings in a retirement vehicle far superior to the retirement plan non-union employees have to accept.

Again, the majority of our counter proposal was rejected and the temperature began to rise. The movement displayed by the opposition in their counter proposal was so insignificant we saw no reason to drastically revise our 2nd counter proposal. We know what the bargaining unit will accept or reject when and if we get a contract to consider for ratification and will not agree to any less than what we had when we walked into negotiations one year ago.

This is just the beginning of what we expected to be difficult bargaining considering both the newspaper industry as a whole, and the economy. The company did state that there is room for them to move, but just how much remains to be seen. This is exactly why we need to strengthen our solidarity and focus on a unified body that will withstand any efforts by management to seek more from us for less. It is no secret that they indeed will be expecting more from us for the fact that my very credible sources tell me that the company is trying to weasel out of their contract with the pressroom cleaners (Network City). A thirty day notice was given to Network City in which the company seeks to terminate their contract. I was also informed that there are two years remaining on that contract. So who do all of you think will inherit those responsibilities?

Now let's discuss the obvious possibility of becoming the "printing hub" that management has spoken of and we have read about in our own paper. The "JOA" joint operating agreement" with The Orange County Register we have been hearing about and was reported in the Orange County Business Journal will no doubt result in our printing of this product. Now throw in the possibility of printing the WSJ, The San Diego Union Tribune and any other potential publication Zell is eyeballing and we can breath easier for the foreseeable near future.

This is what the company hopes to to do and we as a union should want the same and aspired to achieve this goal hand in hand. We will have the responsibility of producing these alternative products with the same quality standards expected from our Los Angeles Times customers.
There is no doubt in my mind that we in the pressroom will rise to the occasion when the time comes as we have done historically, and for that fact, we on the committee will not comprise our worth to this company. Equally, the company should not ignore the contribution we make on a daily basis, year in, year out as we've done for decades.

We called it a day to let cooler heads prevail and will resume negotiations on November 20th. That was the earliest date possible for both parties. We know that many more of our brothers and sisters have put their faith in the Union and understand that the landscape of the pressroom would be far worse now had we not organized and are aware of what will happen should we ever put our trust in Sam Zell or his minions. We cannot afford to allow this opportunity to escape us no matter what we face in negotiations, so please remain united and patient, because we have always persevered in the face of challenge. This will be by far the biggest challenge we will face together. It will take everyone to stand up for what you believe you are worth and our TRADE deserves. Accept no less, your negotiating committee won't either.

Fraternally and in Solidarity!
Brother Ronnie

Rumor Control and Negotiation Update

It was no shock to me that we lost some of our supervisors this past week. It is always terrible for anyone to lose their job, its worse just before the holidays. We have witnessed the exodus of our friends and co-workers for years now and it is always heart wrenching for most of us. As salary employees, there is no obligation for management to honor supervisors seniority in their respective position. Why the supervisors that were relieved of their post were chosen, can only be answered by those who made the decision as to who they considered expendable. Some will be missed by some, and some will be missed by all. Either way, they will be missed. I will personally miss Misty Griffin for the fact that she was always honest, fair and treated everyone with respect.

RUMOR CONTROL
O.C. RUMOR: There have been many questions regarding the possibility of the pending Joint Operating Agreement between The Orange County Register and The Times that was reported in The Orange County Business Journal (Click for story). One main concern I have been hearing is that Pressmen from The Register will come and run their own product on our presses. We have not been given any indication from management that they are considering anything like that. I don't see how that would be a profitable venture for the company to "rent" our presses and that is essentially what something like that would be. Language we have already agreed to prevents management from hiring part-time employees to sub plant the full time workforce. All the details regarding part-time employees will be presented at the upcoming ratification meetings.

L.A. RUMOR: There are going to be more buy-outs and we are going to lose 4 crews.
Management did not state that they intend to reduce staffing at this time and it was not mentioned at the table.

NEGOTIATIONS
Today we gave management our wage and benefit proposals and spent time discussing the new benefit package offered by management and our desire to explore coverage through either the Teamsters, the GCC or the company sponsored health care program. We also proposed a "medical opt-out program" in which the company is being asked to give a fraction of the projected per employee company medical cost back to the employee(s) wishing to opt-out of the company medical benefit. This type of reimbursement is becoming very common for companies looking to reduce their benefit overhead by allowing employees to opt-out of their company coverage. This program has saved large, self insured companies such as ours millions of dollars and it also gives the employee and their family more flexibility in medical coverage options.

The wages, benefit and pension proposals were submitted as a package proposal and it included our proposed term of the contract, a signing bonus, sick days and several other topics. The proposals are, we believe to be fair, but we are sure that the company's counter proposal will reflect managements desire to control costs. We on the committee are not ignorant to the state of our industry and the effect the economy is having on our company and are bargaining with those factors in mind. We are extremely aware of how the economy has effected each of our households as well and bargain with that in mind even more so.

We are attempting to have management redirect their retirement contributions to each employee for the purpose of reinvesting it into the Interlocal Pension Fund. For more information on the Interlocal Pension Fund (click here) There is no other plan like this and we will be able to contribute an additional pecentage above the negotiated amount contributed by the company.

With all of that said, I must remind all of you that no matter what we on the negotiating committee and our representatives agree to at the table, all bargaining unit employees will have the final word by voting on the tentative agreements reached in negotiations. If there are areas that are not acceptable to a majority of those who vote, then the committee will go back to the table and attempt to renegotiate the unsatisfactory terms. It is extremely important that everyone vote because ratification is based on a majority of those who cast a vote. Don't let only those who vote decide for you whether or not we ratify these tentative agreements.

Negotiations resume on November 6th at which time we will receive the company's counter proposal.

In Solidarity!

Vacation Over, Back to the Table

Vacation over and I'm another year older, I won't bore you with what I did. Calls from L.A. brothers about a change in our practices at the end of the shift came to me last week involving a new practice in L.A.'s. pressroom. Leads now have to be walked in after washing blankets to deter washing out the webs. Does management actually give a crap, when we, not them, have to pick them up. This is another way for supervision to police our work and will give management another way to pit us against one another. How will the individuals that wash out webs be viewed by the rest of the crew when the leads have to be put back in before going home? Now add a couple of bars.

It's obvious a complaint was lodged with the office that previous shifts are washing out webs. This is part of the job and happens on every shift and no one should feel compelled to complain when it happens to them. Blankets can be washed without washing them out, if they are done right, but how many of us actually washes the blankets right knowing that we go home as soon as we're done? It is part of our job and we should be washing them thoroughly for quality purposes, but does not justify the change without collective bargaining.

The appropriate, and only solution would be to go back to washing before the run. This would ensure that washing will be done properly and give supervision the opportunity to inspect the blankets if they chose to. If the blankets need further cleaning that can be addressed while the employee assigned to that particular unit is still there. If a lead is washed out, you pick up your own leads, not leads washed out by the previous crew because they were anxious to bolt out of there as quickly as possible. Washing before the run as we used to do has been suggested many times to management and is considered by Russ as only a way to get a bigger bust-out. This was the standard prior to Walker changing the washing process back in 2003 and should be reversed at this time because it hasn't seemed to slow anyone down and it will guarantee clean blankets everyday, every run. We have proposed this in our overall contract proposal and will pursue this change further today.

We will have more information pertaining to the company's written response to our request for information regarding the recent raises given to non-union production employees as soon as the committee meets with our representative Sonny Shannon today. The written response was being reviewed by our attorney in Washington and President Tedeschi. We on the committee are just as anxious as are all of you to learn what our options are in this matter.

I personally hope that the company comes to the table today with a willingness to salvage the progress we felt we had made right up until the closing hour of our last negotiations. As I stated in a previous post, we had expressed a willingness to show some flexibility and it was not fully reciprocated in their latest proposal regarding seniority. Flexibility has been their number one request, yet they have shown none. We are expected to respond to their latest package proposal and will pick up where we left off.

News from this round of negotiations will be posted after we conclude on Wednesday.

Is the new Publisher a Union Guy?

"No Go" tiations!

First, I apologize for the delay in getting this information posted, so let's get started. The latest negotiations which took place on Wednesday July 30th and Thursday July 31st were expected to be very productive on our part, considering where we left off previously. We had essentially felt that a positive dialog had begun and presumed that we would both negotiate from a "mutual interest" point of view.

We began at the table Wednesday morning by receiving the company's reponse to our information request pertaining to the recent "Hybrid" merit raises given to non-union production employees. The legal jargon we've been given in response to previous requests was again being recycled in this response as if it is memorized and put on a rubber stamp for convienience. That being said, our Legal Representatives will review their written response and instruct our Rep's Sonny and Mike as to how we should proceed on this subject. Any wage increase we propose will include that it be retroactive to raises currently being given.

We have expressed an opposition to merit based wage increases from the very beginning because of the evaluation process that is used to determine the eligibilty of an employee to recieive an increase, and the amount of an individual's potential increase based on his or her evaluation. We believe everyone will agree that this process has proven to cater to favortism and also believe you would agree that a "general" wage increase across the board is the only fair method of implementing a wage increase.

As we had previously discussed at the table, and agreed to, Sonny and I, along with the company's representives, Tim Fair and Russ met in "side bar" off the record, thus I cannot devulge the actual conversations that took place during this procedure. Without giving any details of the conversation, Sonny and I listened to items the company considered "deal breakers" and they simply would not consider agreeing to. We listened closely to their concerns and feel that we were willing give some ground to move the negotiations forward and show good faith. This procedure took the better part of Wednesday, and Sonny and I both left the side bar feeling that it was extremely productive and looked forward to getting back to the table, and back on record.

Thursday's negotiations began early with much anticipation. Seniority was an issue we discussed in previous negotiations and felt we were getting close to an agreement at that time. In the final hour, the company decided they would propose to classify each position and in the event of staffing reductions, the lowest seniority pressperson in a specific classification would be laid off first. We said we would agree to that concept if they would agree to "bumping rights" which would allow a senior pressperson who's job classification experiences a reduction in staffing to bump someone with less seniority outside of that classification, thus resulting in the last man in, first man out. Their pat answer of "we're not interested" and their unwillingness to agree to reverse seniority without classification caused this subject to be set aside.

Sonny felt that this topic (seniority) was a good place to begin on Thursday morning and would also be used to gauge the company's movement in the negotiations in general, simply because this issue does not have an economic impact on the company one way or another.
We have stood fast on the principle of reverse seniority in the event of staffing reductions. The company representatives have sought to layoff and recall according to skills and ability.
The problem with their approach, like merit raises, allows for favortism. Another concern of our's with this concept is, who will be responsible for determining one's skills and abilities?
Management? Supervision? Sam Zell? Again favortism surfaces.

We prepared and presented a "package proposal" giving the company the "management rights" they sought with the inclusion of language that would prevent their mgt. rights from superceeding the agreements contained in the contract. In exchange we were asking for seniority language which included reverse seniority in the event of staffing reductions, union security, which requires union membership to work in our shops, and dues check off, requiring the company to deduct union dues from members payroll and forward those dues to the local.
Remember, all union dues are tax deductable and we don't pay dues until we ratify a contract.

Our package proposal was rejected, and the company presented a counter proposal in which they sought to protect up to 15 individuals they deemed "high performers" they would like to retain in the event of layoffs. This number amounted to 6% of the 248 workforce employed in the pressrooms. Our first reaction was, again, favortism will flourish under this concept. Sonny challenged their number of 15 and used a hypothetical layoff of 20 individuals and illustrated that if they could protect 15 of the 20, they would actually receive 75% protection for their favorites from being laid off. There was no way we would even consider this and counter proposed, for the purpose of moving forward, a 1 in 20 ratio that would allow them to protect 1 in 20 if a layoff were to occur. So in order for them to save 1 of their high perfomers, a minimum of 20 individuals would have to be targeted for layoff. If 39 positions are being eliminated, they would still only be able to protect 1 high performer.

Another section of their proposal contained new language which would essentially strip the union of it's "jurisdiction" and allow the company to bring in any one they choose to run our presses without them having to join the Teamsters. The extreme danger of this language would also allow the company to send our work outside the buliding to other workers without recourse. This language was introduced, once again, in the final hour mucking up the progress we had felt we were making. Sonny became very irate with the company representatives for attempting to introduce this language knowing that this would be highly scrutinized and rejected by our side of the table. The company came with another counter proposal eliminating the protections for high performers, and gave us reverse seniority, but was not interested in removing the language that trampled on the unions jurisdiction. This package proposal by the company was made with the stipulation that if rejected, it would be retracted. Sonny accused them of intentionally throwing a wrench in the process by doing so and broke off negotiations for the day.

Sonny, Mike, President Tedeschi and our Legal Team in Washington will review our last proposal and the company's as well, and determine how to proceed. I trust they will hammer out a plan that will put our negotiations on the track it needs to be on to achieve our goal of negotiating a "fair" collective bargaining agreement. Stand fast and be patient, we'll can get there together, in solidarity!

Up to Speed with Sonny Shannon

Yesterdays meetings went great. All that attended were introduced to our Lead Negotiator, GCC/IBT International Representative, "Sonny" Shannon. His first name is John, but he says he uses Sonny because it takes too long to say his full name, I've heard him say it, it's true!

Sonny brings a strong presence to the table and is sincere in his service to our bargaining unit. The negotiation committee has put it's full confidence in both Sonny and Mike Huggins without reservation.
Both of these men have proven to be committed to our bargaining unit and have convinced the committee that we indeed have the best representatives in the business. I think those of you that met him yesterday would agree.

Topics discussed were related to current production raises. An information request pertaining to the raises was presented at negotiations on July 9th and the company was not prepared to respond to our information request when we met again on July 16th.
We expect to receive that response at our next meeting.

Sonny explained our decision to contact advertisers and to run radio ads as well as their effects.The company's bargaining style does, and will determine whether or not we continue these type of actions to increase our position at the table. We presented language to create an evironment of cooperation in bargaining which the company representative stated they could agree to in concept. We have agreed to bargain from a position of "Mutual Interest"
If we stay true to this concept we will reach agreements that will provide both sides what they each need, and not necessarily what they each want. We will attempt to reach agreements and create the language to reflect those agreements, hopefully resulting in a contract sooner than later.

Many complaints were heard about evaluations that were given in which great disparitys between these evaluations and past evaluations are evident. We have addressed this at the table and will continue to do so. We do not agree with this process because it continues to cater to favortism by those who evaluate.

We also delivered your complaints about supervision's inconsistant placement of presspersons added to a crew when the absence of a crew member occurs. In the event of a vacancy on a crew, regardless of the reason, additional personell has historically, according to their model, gone to the bottom of the crew and the members on the crew move up until the vacant crew spot is filled. Our SVP's response was that they have always had the right to put replacement crew members anywhere on the crew based on production needs and the individuals skills. I strongly disagreed and told him that the reasons explained to those who complained were told "thats the way it is, and that's the way it's going to stay. Nothing about production needs or skills.
I don't think this will be the end of this subject.

Our next negotiations are scheduled for July 30th and 31st.