The Plain Dealer’s editorial labor union, The Northeast Ohio Newspaper Guild Local 1, has filed three grievances against the paper. If a settlement is not reached this week, the matter could go to arbitration. “Our positions appear to be unresolvable,” says Newspaper Guild Executive Secretary Rollie Dreussi.
In the first and biggest issue, the union claims that the December layoffs of 27 editorial staff included senior employees who should have been protected by the labor contract. “We don’t feel seniority was taken into account at all,” says Dreussi. PD management did not respond to Scene’s request for comment.
A separate point claims that non-discrimination language about age was not followed in determining which employees were let go. “Older and more experienced employees were laid off,” says Dreussi. “So we’re contending [the PD has] discriminated on the basis of age — and, maybe, union activity.”
In another issue, the Guild says managers (mostly editors) are doing the work of laid-off employees and active union members, from copy editing to page design, in violation of the labor agreement. This complaint includes the creation of some online material. The union contract says online work belongs to union members. But the contract has some vague provisions that allow non-union employees — from freelancers to managers — to contribute to exclusively “online venues” such as blogs, podcasts or chatrooms.
In March, PD management cut non-union employees’ pay and instituted mandatory 10-day furloughs. The cutbacks affect over a third of PD employees. Management has not presented the Guild with similar concessions.
If the grievances are resolved in the union’s favor, some jobs from the December cuts could be reinstated.
“We don’t want to see anybody laid off or see other people kicked out the door,” says Guild Union Chair Harlan Spector. “My position is: we need to defend the contract. … I’d like to see some people get their job back without costing some people their jobs. … The fact is: there’s not enough of us to do the work that’s required.” — D.X. Ferris
This article appears in Apr 8-14, 2009.
This is simply a ploy by the Guild to appease the longtime memebers who were laid off. Seniority was one of four factors taken into account for being laid off. If the Guild is so against the layoff language, union leaders and members should have never voted to accpet it during contract negotiations. The lesser seniority members did not vote for it….we weren’t here. Now it appears the Guild realized its screw up and needs to fix it…maybe at the expense of other employees. Seniority is the hallmark of every union, you just don’t give it up. Maybe it was incompetent bargaining. Why should the lesser tenured employees be the fall guys? How else do you bring people back without getting rid of others? And for all the Guild members who will snipe behind my back, I fought real battles in a Teamsters for years…we never gave up seniority. And if you post a reply about my reply, please have the guts to put your name on it.
Mark Puente
Local 1 member
Since I don’t have a complete history of what’s been happening in Local 1 these past 16 years, I will not comment on the “rightness” or “wrongness” of the present situation.
However, when Brother Puente speaks of the possibility of “incompetent bargaining” I am willing to bet that he never engaged in such bargaining.
Whatever is in the contract–or not in it–is the ultimate responsbility of the members.
Bargaining is a process of give and take. Their ultimate weapon over any issue is to strike. Were the members willing to strike over the issue of seniority? My guess is that they were not.
If a Bargaining Committee does not have a militant membership behind it, that committe is severely handicapped when it goes into bargaining.
Steve Hatch
Former Executive Secretary
Guild Local 1
Mr. Hatch,
You would lose the bet about my bargaining and union experience. I stood on a picket line for three weeks in order to defend a senioity issue and union jobs. You are barking up the wrong tree.
I have no idea when the seniority clause was put in the contract…the union boss doesn’t even know. So, what does that tell you?
Sir, you are correct about the need for a militant membership. But that membership–militant or weak–needs leaders who offer straight talk, not spin. Those same leaders need to relaize they serve all members, not just the longtime members..or should I say friends.
Mark Puente
Local 1 member