Sat 28 Feb 2009
In the history of negotiations between the Newspaper Guild and The Sacramento Bee, few have been as difficult as Friday. As the newspaper industry reels from lost advertising, declining readership and a stalled economy, the company brought out its proposal for wage cuts and layoffs.
In the end, following hours of talks and counterpoints, the Guild’s bargaining team agreed to take the company’s package to a vote of members on Friday, March 6.
The move was made without a recommendation on whether members should vote yes or no on the package.
Let’s get into the details of what members in advertising and editorial must consider in the coming days:
Friday’s tentative agreement includes 34 layoffs from within the bargaining unit — eight positions in advertising and 26 in the newsroom.
The tentative agreement also included salary reductions that break down this way:
- For employees earning less than $25,000, no cut in pay.
- Those earning between $25,000 and $50,000 can expect a cut of 3 percent.
- Employees earning $50,000 or more will see their salaries rolled back 6 percent.
Agreement was reached on commission payouts under the new commission structure and a 2% salary increase to contract minimums. However, the company made it clear that payments under this new system would be retroactive to January 1, 2009, only if the tentative agreement is ratified on March 6.
The wage cuts would go into effect on April 1. They apply building wide, including the publisher and management and others beyond the bargaining unit.
The Guild was offered a painful and unpleasant choice.
If its membership rejects those wage cuts for its bargaining unit, the number of layoffs within the unit would increase to 53, which translates to 16 positions in advertising and 37 in the newsroom.
The company was not interested in voluntary buyouts like we had last summer at The Bee.
Human Resources Director Linda Brooks said those who are laid off will be notified in person or by telephone calls at home. If an employee is on vacation, they will rely on the emergency number on file with HR. So if your emergency number is wrong, or if you want to check who you have down as that contact, you may want to contact HR. Brooks did not specify when this process would begin, but it will be soon.
Unpaid furloughs are also a possibility. The tentative agreement includes language giving the company the right to institute a weeklong furlough during the second half of 2009, if necessary. Hourly employees will be able to take the furlough in day increments; exempt employees must take the time off as a single block. The company agreed to a Guild proposal giving employees 30 days notice if furloughs were to begin.
Furloughs will not occur in the first half of the year. Instead, the company hopes to reap savings by decreasing the cap on how much vacation employees can bank. The company is pressing employees to take all vacation in excess of one week beyond their annual entitlement. For instance, employees who earn four weeks a year of vacation would have to take all accrued vacation in excess of five weeks before June.
As for another contentious subject — the company pension plan — the company agreed to a so-called “side letter” that reiterates the Guild’s contention that our current contract does not allow the company to unilaterally freeze our pensions. The company also reserves its position that it is allowed to take the action. The company previously rejected this side letter as “unacceptable.” The issue will be revisited when talks open in December on a full contract.
Bottom line, however, the company will freeze employee pension plans at the end of March. It does not mean your accumulated pension disappears. It is simply frozen where it is now. Employees not yet vested in the pension plan (less than 5 years service), will continue to accumulate service credit toward a pension — although the company will not be contributing any money while pensions are frozen. So if you’re not yet at five years of service, all is not lost.
For those who ultimately lose their jobs during this trying time, the company will provide COBRA coverage for nine months, taking advantage of the federal stimulus package. Laid off employees will be responsible for 35 percent of their medical premiums — as opposed to 100 percent, as previously required. The nine months is triple the current three months of coverage available under the current contract.
It was a very difficult day for the bargaining committee, which made numerous proposals to soften the impact – nearly all of them rejected by Brooks of Human Resources and Bee labor attorney Bob Ford. Those included proposals asking for no more layoffs through the duration of this labor contract (from now until December). They also rejected our request that if more layoffs were to occur, severance pay would be calculated at employees’ pre-April 1 salary.
The committee tried its hardest to win some concessions in exchange for accepting a difficult package of wage cuts and layoffs. But over and over, the company said it was an all-or-nothing deal necessary to achieve the company’s financial goals in the eye of a severe economic downturn.
Opinions varied within the bargaining committee regarding a choice that was unpleasant in every sense of the word. We have all heard of the layoffs elsewhere, and even steeper wage cuts being asked of other newspapers, including 11.7 percent at the Denver Post and 15 percent at the Seattle Times. Every day brings new reports of newspaper bankruptcies and closings, as was the case at The Rocky Mountain News on Friday.
There’s no way to sugar coat it. This was crisis bargaining, nothing more. Now members must consider the options and vote. We have been told that a no vote will trigger high number of layoffs among us.
We will be having meetings next week to talk it through and chart a direction.
Your Guild bargaining committee included President Ed Fletcher and Walt Yost and Jim Wasserman of editorial and Cindi Taylor of advertising. Present and facilitating the details from the Northern California Media Workers Guild were Wendy Mejia and Linda Frediani.
February 28th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Think about it, if the union had the power to strike, it would have forced management to think twice about ramming down its desires down the union’s throat. So what do we have as a result? A company that is “not interested” in buyouts, a company that offers an “all-in-one deal”. For the individuals that will be laid off, the union has done zilch, and has not been savvy in protecting their job. Again, this is because the union, as it stands, will forever be powerless. For management to threaten to implement more layoffs if demands are not met is the most insulting negotiation tactic I’ve ever heard of. And for the union to fall for it is just as insulting. It’s like someone shooting you in the face is telling you that if you fight back they’ll really shoot you in the face. Geez, the union should have played hardball from day one. It should have brought other unions to bear on the situation. It should have been one for all and all for one. Do you think the Bee would close the newspaper down like the Rocky Mountain News has done? The Bee is still profitable and that would be ultimate shareholder suicide. So what then? Hastening that idea of a closed business or hobbled one – seeking bringing that about is exactly what the union should act on in the immediate. How can it do this? Sadly, the answer may forever be lost to the reality of the first sentence. A walkout is the only solution.
February 28th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Dear Eugene Debs: The shareholders are already committing suicide. McClatchy is going into Chapter 11 sometime soon. It doesn’t matter how profitable the Bee and other MNI papers still are. The guild is toothless but even if it was strong it couldn’t change the reality of MNI’s upcoming bankruptcy.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Hey guys:
Any idea how many managers are being cut?
February 28th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Vote no. I’m tired of hearing their threats. We are in this mess because of Pruitt’s purchase. It’s the company’s debt that’s killing us. The more people they cut, the more they hurt the paper’s ability to produce revenue thus hurting themselves. Has Pruitt responded to his pay cut request?! Now might be the best time to get the heave-ho. Will there be any severance pay once they are in bankruptcy?
February 28th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
I agree that we should vote no. Make the company lay off the maximum number (giving us, at least, enough money to get by for a while and a bit of certainty in our lives) and see how — and for how long — the company gets by without adequate staff that knows the area, the beats and how to report and edit. There are a couple of management types who probably won’t be let go because of their “diversity” value that I would love to see try to put out their sections with half their staff.
Vote no. Force the issue.
February 28th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Sacto Jay is right on all points. Vote no.
February 28th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
I have touble with the headline on this one, suggesting a bad deal “saves jobs.” For how long will these jobs be “saved”? One day? One week? As best I can tell, we have absolutely NO guarantee that the company won’t come back next week or next month and order those additional 11 newsroom cuts, plus as many more as it pleases. I might agree to a pay cut to save a colleague’s job through the end of the year, but I am WAY less interested in taking the same cut to save my buddy’s job for an extra day.
Plus — why agree to pay cuts at all? A three-week furlougth, unpaid, is roughly equivalent in payroll savings to a 6 percent pay cut. Surely we’d rather have the time off — so why roll over now without fighting for something better?
If we vote for this dog, we will have only ourselves to blame. Vote no. Demand the company come back to the bargaining table and actually bargain,instead of offering us this Orwellian parody of a “bargain.”
February 28th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Is the company opening its books? It is pleading poverty. We are entitled to see the hard numbers.
February 28th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Vote no. We can expect whittling away at our salaries and benefits to continue in the months to come. We can expect more layoffs next quarter and the next and the next.
The cuts are not going to stop at any McClatchy paper but the papers cannot cut enough to get us out from underneath the debt obligations that Gary and the board have crippled the company with.
They did this to us. There is no reason to cooperate with them.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
How about a Gary Pruitt dunk booth? I will give 3 percent of my salary for three throws. … Vote no.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Yeah, but Gary shouldn’t be the only one in the dunking booth. The family and the board agreed to the KR purchase and they’re keeping him in place now. And he’s not the only corporate officer making $1 million.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
A no vote is the only way to go. This is a bum deal.
February 28th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
I’ll offer more thoughts on the subject soon, but I want to point out that a ‘no’ vote doesn’t mean we’re out of the woods. The contract will be unresolved and we can be forced back to the table to resume talks about cuts — not that we’d have any guarantees we wouldn’t be talking about more cuts and more layoffs if the contract is approved.
The team did everything we could be but the company wouldn’t move an inch.
Vote what you will but, everyone urging a no vote should also ask themselves what are they willing to do to strengthen the guild.
February 28th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Something Guild members need to consider is the future of newspapers and McClatchy’s roll in it. Many analysts believe that MNI will be in technical default by the end of 2009 so you have to ask yourself that if the company goes into Chapter 11 do you want to be at a 6% lower salary?
The reality, whether you wish to accept it or not, is that the Golden Age of newspapers is over. This is not to say that Journalism is coming to an end, but what is happening to the Chronicle in San Francisco is a preview of what will most likely happen in the entire industry. Simply put the Chronicle, facing a plethora of competition across all fronts (print and online), will need to shrink (by as much as 50%) to stay viable. The Bee will ultimately need to shrink too, so is taking a 6% cut to save a relatively few jobs wise when it’s almost certain those jobs will be ultimately lost anyway? Would it be better in the long run to suffer the additional layoffs now and learn to operate with a smaller staff of well paid (er, perhaps just better paid), professionals?
I am perhaps naive in thinking that Bee management does not have some nefarious ulterior motive in asking for these concessions. I prefer to think it’s more a lack of long term planning. I believe that Bee management wants these concessions because they’d like to be able to retain as many people as possible (or more accurately lay-off as few as possible) to continue, as much as possible, to do business as usual.
But business as usual is no longer feasible. Keep the 6%, and suffer the larger layoffs and prepare for the future, says I.
February 28th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Um, the numbers are off in the graf about how many get whacked if the wage cut is rejected: 6 + 37 = 43, not 53. I’m assuming you mean that advertising would get 16 hits, not 6. But whatever the number is, the news operation can only do less with less. Expect to see major hits in newshole — even entire sections whacked. Then again, maybe it would be a good thing to move national sports agate online. Eyeballs, ya know.
As for wage cuts vs. furloughs, furloughs are the better deal. At least you’re not working for the Bee while the company cuts off its revenue stream. Problem for the Bee, I hear, is that during a furlough the company would have to cut off access to email, hermes from home, the building, etc., etc., in order to make sure (under federal rules perhaps) the company isn’t forcing furloughed workers to work for free. Another problem for the Bee is that if we’re furloughed, it makes the company look like Dante’s Inferno if the bigs insist we can’t work elsewhere to make up for the lost income.
Pay cuts may set up a stampede out the door, even in this economy. Some of us can still wield a wrench, pick up a drill, or talk a politician into hiring us. Too bad none of the McClatchys seem interested in a Plan Bee — buying it back and taking it private. No matter what, we all need to set up our own Plan Bee before the vote.
February 28th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Saving my pension doesn’t mean anything if I don’t have a job. And if there’s a no vote, then that increases the risk that I’ll be out the door. In this economy, I don’t want to be without income. Simple as that. I’ll take the pay cut or a furlough; just don’t take my job. I know I’m not the only person at the Bee who feels that way.
February 28th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
They can’t take the company private, because with $2 billion in debt no one will lend them the money to buy back the stock. And previous poster, if the bigs were good at long term planning, they wouldn’t have made the few hires they just did…only to turn around and have to lay them off.
The family, the corporation and Bee newsroom management have proved they can’t be trusted.
February 28th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
To previous poster: Not Plan McClatchy, Plan Bee. Surely the flagship itself isn’t carrying $2 billion in debt.
February 28th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Sacto Jay, before you start throwing “diversity” around like a dirty word, reveal yourself so we can judge you on your merits. Don’t turn this difficult situation into something about your insecurities.
I for one, want to discuss the merits of this proposal for what it is — a difficult and painful decision for many of us. I urge everyone to vote what they think is right, whether it is yes or no. Ultimately, there might not be a right decision, just one that makes the most sense under the circumstances.
Remember that there are many lives at stake here, not just careers. But also realize that what we do here will have ramifications far beyond this vote.
We all have to consider our personal limits — what we’re willing to do and what we’re willing to live with.
Tough decisions for sure.
Bobby Caina Calvan
February 28th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
A. Nonnie Mouse, you’re absolutely right. There was a typo in the report. It is indeed 16 from advertising and 37 from the newsroom — for a total of 53Guild-covered employees — if Guild members reject the tentative agreement.
February 28th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
It’s clear to me that our bargaining team worked incredibly hard on this. But they can’t do it alone. A strong “no” vote, heavily outnumbering the “yeses” would give the bargaining team leverage to go back to the table and tell the company, “Look, the membership simply won’t accept this. So show us what else you’ve got.”
It’s true that that’s risky too, and MIGHT not get us anything. But it also MIGHT give us a fighting chance at something a little better, in terms of furloughs, buyouts, delayed pay cuts, whatever. If we don’t try to fight, we’ll never know what we could have won.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
I’m not voting on this, but if I were, I’d be giving it the mighty thumbs down.
Too much to lose; nothing to be gained. Put the ball in the company’s court.
Also, can you clarify one issue, please.
The guild seems to be saying furloughs as possible but not certain.
The company memo seems to be expressing that they are actually going to happen.
That’s another 2% of your salary folks, not counting what you’ve lost on the 401K match suspension and pension.
Remember, the corporate debt is the problem, not the Bee, which is showing a 20% operating profit.
Let the family owners restructure their debt in a chapter 11 filing and take a hit, instead of making workers eat it. We didn’t buy Knight-Ridder, after all, did we?
Mr. Pruitt: you did the videos before. Where’s your 2 cents worth this time? Why should we vote yes for this deal? To save jobs you won’t even guarantee will be here next week?
Too much darling, too much…
February 28th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
I couldn’t agree more with Anonymous 10:59 and A “no” vote could help the Guild. This deal gets a big no from me.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Look, let’s be blunt. The union can’t strike. So the company knows it can cram whatever it wants down the guild’s throat. And it has. And it will.
To hell with them.
Yes, I know people have bills to pay and need their salaries. So do I.
But in the long run — in the long run, McClathy is bankrupt. Probably in the short run, too.
So to hell with them.
Let the family take the hit. We get to vote.
Vote no.
March 1st, 2009 at 12:16 am
I cannot vote either, but I might go along with the “yes” side if I thought the layoffs would be evenly spread thruout the news departments, would include a big chunk of semi-useless management, and would be based on competence.
I have no confidence that will happen. I suspect some of the least competent reporters and writers will be spared, for a variety of political and socially acceptable reasons, along with whether they know how to juggle a data base or post a map online.
When Linda Brooks listed the skills that are especially valued, she did not mention reporting or writing. Which sounds right in tune with newsroom managers who can recognize neither skill…
The committee has tried hard. The only power we have left is to vote NO, if only to make it clear that we are not a party to this farce.
March 1st, 2009 at 12:46 am
Force the Bee to renegotiate? Oust Gary Pruitt? Bankrupt the McClatchy familiy?
In what alternate reality is a no vote at this time going to achieve anything but more pink slips?
I have to believe that 99% of the posts to this forum are from ex-employees or non-employees eager to fight the Bee to my last paycheck. Because the people I work with every day are smarter than this.
March 1st, 2009 at 1:42 am
Number 1 said everything that needed to be said.
If the Guild were a real union, it’d use the only tool unions actually have to negotiate a better deal — you form a cohesive unit and strike. You let the newspapers yellow in the stands as long as it takes. Hell, it’s a furlough in the end anyway, so maybe even that won’t make McClatchy blink, but at least they’d know you’re all serious.
You people who are saying “no” need to understand you can’t win. Period. At all. Did you read what Fletcher wrote? “Crisis bargaining.” You’re not trying to get better wages out of this, or a higher match to your 401(k). Do you see the UAW, or the Boeing Machinists giving their companies the finger just to “fight them”? Not at all.
I realize everyone’s out for No. 1 and all, but seriously, can you folks even begin to think like a team, so you can save each other as well as yourselves? A strike would, more than anything, show you’re all serious about keeping everyone’s jobs and wages where they are.
March 1st, 2009 at 8:45 am
No. 27, you’re way off track. McClatchy IS going bankrupt. That’s not something the guild is trying to do. It’s something the McClatchy board did to itself. I don’t want that to happen, but I have no control over it.
No one is trying to bankrupt the family or oust Pruitt. We’re saying no to the company’s layoff plan, because a yes does employees no good.
A yes says: Do what you want to us right now, and when you come back around and lay off another 10 or 20 or 30 people next quarter, well, you can do what you want then, too.
It’s not going to get any better, No. 27. That’s the reality.
March 1st, 2009 at 8:52 am
I do not believe that the Bee’s profit margin is anywhere near 20%. Of course they won’t open their books to anyone but the Guild attorney as is their right (which doesn’t make it “right” as far as I’m concerned).
The Bee was heavily supported by classifieds and real estate advertising. Both of these have been devastated, not to mention the lost display advertising from failed big-box stores.
Overall MNI posted a 5% profit for 2008 and that includes a loss for December (this is *before* the debt payments). The Sacramento Bee and Miami Herald are thought by many (remember, no open books) to be the dead weight pulling down the other papers. That doesn’t sound like 20% does it?
Of course I don’t think the Bee is operating at a loss either (yet), that little titbit would be too hard to keep quiet.
I offer this simply to clarify… I’ve already stated my opinion on the upcoming vote.
March 1st, 2009 at 9:18 am
I deleted comments about diversity at the paper. That is another conversation for another day.
I’m glad to have people commenting here, but when its time to vote its the thoughts of paid members that matter.
March 1st, 2009 at 9:20 am
Thank you, Cassandra Jones, and others for proving my point – the posts here are not from actual Guild members with honest opinions on the proposal, but from Bee-hating impostors trying to throw yet another monkey wrench into the company.
So, no, thank you, we won’t be taking your heartfelt advice that we cut off our noses to spite our faces.
March 1st, 2009 at 9:25 am
Dear Cassandra,
People are posting here because they work at the Bee and don’t want to lose their jobs. THey’re not “interested in what happens at McClatchy.” They’re at a crucial point in their employment in an industry they’ve loved and a newspaper that they’ve loved.
And here you come wanting to insult one of our number with a bunch of race-baiting crap. Do your trolling elsewhere, dear.
March 1st, 2009 at 9:28 am
I’m a guild member, and I’m voting no.
March 1st, 2009 at 10:06 am
Go, ahead, play the race card, again. Here’s what people from other department say about you guys:
“No one in Sac Bee Editorial gave a rats ass when the Customer Service jobs where sent to the Philippines or when the Circulation Department was completely eviscerated. We have always been looked down on from Management and other in house Departments.”
What makes you people think you shouldn’t lose your jobs like everyone else?
Welcome to our nightmare.
March 1st, 2009 at 10:27 am
I suggest that everyone take the comments here, except those by Ed and Bobby, with a very large grain of salt. A boulder.
I have spoken with many of my Bee co-workers, those in the guild and those covered by the guild, in the past couple of days. None subscribe to any of the whacked-out theories being posted here about how it’s in our best interest to vote away our own jobs.
Not one.
No one’s happy about the choice we face, and no one’s happy with the lack of real negotiation by the company on this.
It’s unfortunate, but perhaps inevitable given the nature of the Internet, that this forum for guild-covered Bee employees has been overtaken by the abstract musings of armchair generals theorizing on the future of the industry and the rantings of race-baiters with a grudge against the Bee and its employees.
Don’t be duped, and don’t be disheartened by the astroturfing going on here. These are not your co-workers. These are bitter outsiders trying to goad you into doing something stupid for their own amusement.
Your actual co-workers recognize what’s at stake here – not abstract theories on labor relations or some nutbar’s revenge fantasy, but the very real jobs, homes, and families of ourselves and our friends.
Talk to your co-workers. Don’t be taken in by those who are trying to do us harm with a faked-up “groundswell of opposition” here.
March 1st, 2009 at 10:28 am
Wait! there’s more!
“Conflicted huh? It is about time. I remember when this very crop of individuals stood by and watched with compete contempt while their peers with skills and dirty aprons were summarily dispatched.
They could have helped and saved hundreds of jobs, but their J-School smugness had trained them right. They were far to important to soil their position by walking out and standing with mere pressmen, mailers, operators, printers, stereotypers, artist and carriers. They didn’t even have the nuts to include all employees in their negotiations, something they could have done just by saying so. What did they do, they threw them under the bus just to delay their own demise.
But now, all of a sudden they are conflicted. I’m sorry as hell, but my heart bleed for predecessors and those who will suffer at their hands once again. It’s all bled out.”
March 1st, 2009 at 10:36 am
And the truth finally comes out. Not a co-worker at all – just another loon with an ax to grind.
March 1st, 2009 at 11:32 am
With McClatchy stock at around 50 cents a share, why don’t Guild and union members just buy out the company?
Gary Pruitt could be fired, you could set your own salaries and save the newspapers and the jobs of your sisters and brothers!
March 1st, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Number 28, my wife works at the Bee.
A yes vote does no good. A no vote does no good. I agree with everything you say.
What I don’t know is whether you think a “no” vote will make McClatchy pause the next time around. I believe they will cut and cut and cut some more, as much as they have to.
If everyone’s out to save their own skins, that’s fine, then tell McClatchy no and keep your wage where it is. I don’t judge that. Bills to pay. But don’t act like you’re doing it for any other reason than that, because any other reason doesn’t hold water. You’re not doing it to take on a bigger workload and prepare for when McClatchy slims down further; you’re not doing it to thumb your nose at corporate; and you’re not doing it as some kind of righteous protest against what our business has become.
You’re voting no because you think you won’t get cut, and you want to keep your wage where it is.
March 1st, 2009 at 1:28 pm
I feel like there’s a big, unanswered question here …
How many non-guild members are going to be laid off, and can our decision lower that number, too?
The company has said that if the guild approves paycuts, everyone gets paycuts — including non-guild members. Since the savings from eliminating 19 employees is likely much less than the savings from a 6 percent, companywide paycut, I’m assuming that choosing to take the paycut will result in fewer layoffs among non-guild staff. But that is just an assumption; I’d like some clarity.
I realize the company has refused to say anything specific about non-guild layoffs, but even a general answer to this question would lend some more perspective.
March 1st, 2009 at 1:45 pm
When will people start finding out if they’re laid off? Will it be immediately after the guild votes? Another weekend of not knowing will hurt morale even more than it already has been hurt.
March 1st, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Debs 9:13 –
I think we gotta be real here. Walkout is the only solution? Would be a good idea to first consider how many Guild-covered employees actually pay dues. Would have been a good idea to have a closed shop. We never got it because most covered employees didn’t want to (as evidenced by their failure to pay dues) and then the company laughed at us when we asked for it at the bargaining table. We had many membership drives and at times got our memberhsip rate a bit higher, but we never hit that critical mass that would have made us a force to be reckoned with. Please keep that in mind before talking about walkouts.
Andy Furillo
March 1st, 2009 at 1:54 pm
I’ve heard the percentage of non-guild layoffs will equal the percentage of guild layoffs, whatever that ends up being after the vote. I can’t vouch for it, just what I heard.
March 1st, 2009 at 2:04 pm
To clarify the above – I’m speaking of non-guild layoffs within the newsroom. I don’t know anything about layoffs throughout the rest of the company.
March 1st, 2009 at 2:05 pm
One other thing:
We’ve got to thank the bargaining committee for representing us in an incredibly difficult time. And I agree with the committee’s decision to pass the tent ag through to the membership without making a recommendation or making a commitment to the company one way or the other. This is going to be an incredibly excruciating individual decision for everyone to make, with no recommendation needed. People know what’s at stake.
March 1st, 2009 at 4:04 pm
In response to No. 39, darn right I am out to save my own skin. My family’s budget is tight as it is and I absolutely cannot afford to take a 6% paycut, plus a week furlough, with no guarantee that there aren’t going to be more cuts/layoffs in the future. Not to mention the extra workload that will no doubt come with a smaller staff. I’d rather press my luck, get a decent severance and collect unemployment while looking for a job that is not in journalism. The company has done nothing to try and boost the staff’s morale in these times, and I fear things will only be worse once this round is over. I’d really like to know how many managers they are planning to cut, as usual it’s the little people who bear the brunt of the company’s poor decisions.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Until now, I’ve read these comments and refrained from joining in the discussion. But I feel now is the time to give you some idea of what’s going on in advertising.
Things are quite serious. Every week we are required to file a so-called “flash” report. A flash report is an estimate of the ad dollars we will bring in for the week. Last week we had to “flash” for the month of March. I estimate that the revenue on my territory will drop 22% for billing period 3. But really the number is probably closer to 30% if current trends continue.
A double digit loss of revenue has been the norm in the department for the last 24 months. Clearly this is unsustainable.
The pressure on the staff to sell product is intense. We all know what the repercussions will be if we can’t bring up revenue. There are rumours that some managers will be demoted or outright let go. Consequently, there is a desperate attempt (and a reasonable demand) by management to have us out in the field as much as possible.
The problem is that we are required to pitch a variety of products that may not even meet the needs of the advertiser–just as long as meets the needs of the Bee. Just throw up as much “flak” as you can and maybe some of it will hit the mark.
Some of the staff is breaking under the strain. Many people come into work quite ill—so afraid of taking sick leave for any reason. Others are hoarding vacation time, bracing themselves for the inevitable layoffs. One staffer gets up in the morning and vomits in the bathroom before they go into work.
Many of us do not think that this company will make it. We expect a Chapter 11 filing in the next 7-15 months (and 15 months is an optimistic assessment).
One older staffer who has a sinister sense of humour observed that for the people who get a severance, “it will be like the last helicopter out of Saigon.” Once the company files for bankrupcy–all bets are off.
This will be the scenario every 90 days until (1) either revenue hits bottom or (2) the company collapses.
For the people who survive to work another day at the Bee, it could well be like the old saying about nuclear war: “The living will envy the dead.”
Make the choice that is best for you. I love the damned old Bee and great people who work for her.
May God, Luck or Fortune protect you all.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Comment monitoring not something we’ve discuessed. But I alone decided to remove comments that call us ass holes for something that happened years ago.
Twenty years ago, (I think) members of this unit crossed another units picket line that has caused years of bad blood. I spoke with some of them last year and appologized, but there is nothing more I can do. I was in high school at that time.
I refuse to let this board get side tracked with that issue now. Sorry.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:49 pm
That’s right Ed, use censorship to make your point. Don’t your members deserve to hear everything? Or is what you have to say the only important thing? That’s what I mean about what unions have become. You should go back through and delete all the comments that don’t agree with you and then celebrate by burning a few books.
It’s good your looking out for your members and I’m sure that the folks in SanFran are equally looking out for you!
March 1st, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Besides, I’m not rehashing the whole cross the picket line thing either. That ship has sailed and in the end crossing the picket line did nothing more then bring us to where we are now, the inevitable! The production unions did not care anymore then the guild does now about the members and the result will be the same. The terrible part is that those of us that paid dues when others did not, me included, have nothing to show for it.
March 1st, 2009 at 8:02 pm
I want to thank Andy and Ziraldo for bringing us back to Earth.
As to the former Bee employees who are stirring the pot here, please don’t make the lives of current Guild members any more difficult than they are. We’re in a different era now and your experiences during an earlier time at the Bee simply aren’t helpful now. I understand you have battle scars. Let us earn ours now, but please don’t become another adversary. We have enough to handle without your bad attitude.
The ways of the past, both at McClatchy and the Guild, are not relevant to solving our problems today. In fact, those who have sought to foment discord within the Guild, based on past events that none of us were involved in, have really hurt our current recruiting efforts, to the point where we now don’t have enough resources to mount a real battle.
If you really want to help, there’s lots you can do. But I suspect you don’t, since we haven’t heard a peep from you until our present hour of suffering. So please leave us be to solve our contemporary problems without wasting time on ghosts from the past.
I find it ironic that we’re battling malcontents in the very sort of forum that is bringing down our newspapers, and reasoned debate in general. Perhaps it really is too late to save the Fourth Estate.
March 1st, 2009 at 8:05 pm
#35: we are all “armchair generals” virtually by definition. Were we not, we’d have been on the other side of the table.
March 1st, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Ziraldo provided a sobering assessment for us to consider. I personally think if you’re laid off now, you’re lucky. Run for your lives.
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:33 am
Ok, I’m not a current member of the Guild, but I used to be a McClatchy reporter. Take it from me, management is not to be trusted or believed. They may smile and shake hands, profess concern. Don’t take it at face value. They are really pretty slimy and underhanded. Unfortunately, all signs point toward bankruptcy and they just need to shore up their operation with as few people as they can until they file in court.
Leave now. It’s hard to believe when you’re on staff, but there is life beyond newspapers. You’re all smart and hard-working. There are all kinds of opportunities for you out there.
In fact, in response to the earlier comment about “keeping the white man down”: No, honey, they all went to law school.
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:21 am
I believe that the posters who bring up the past are actually trying to make a good point. It is not that they are malcontents. Not at all. Rather, they are showing, by example, that what was affected back when the right to strike was given away is coming to bear in the present… and so everything that the guild does in this vote and otherwise will affect what happens in the near and distant future. So let’s not stick our heads in the sand and try to treat the present situation as not connected to anything. It is connected fully.
As Santayana said: Those (the Ed Fletcher’s and Andy Furillo’s of this world) who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
Lastly, it is wrong to assume that many who have weighed in here are no longer at the Bee. Do you really think that those that are no longer here have nothing better to do with their time?
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Hey guys….I am a Bee employee in the Real Estate Classified Advertising Department, so bottom of the totem pole, or close enough.
I cannot let the powers that Bee, the people who ruined the Bee with bad deals, bad planning & no foresight, push my beloved co-workers, fellow Bee employees or myself around like frikin schoolyard bullies. I am voting NO!
I realize I could very well be let go, I am the sole provider for 5 children and need my job, my medical, etc..believe this.
But this “deal” is unacceptable –
feel free to convince me otherwise folks
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Ziraldo…you are the BEst…whomever yu are…I have an idea….tell it like it is bro
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Again, and this point was brought up in an earlier post, how many unrepresented members of management will be laid off? I think the guild owes it to its membership to get an answer to that question. The Bee has always been middle manager, and top manager, heavy. It seems some of those folks should get cut and possibly save other news producers jobs. How many damn AME’s does that place need?
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Anon 58 –
The guild doesn’t know how many managers will be laid off. The company is under no obligation to tell us and has not seem fit to share that. I wish I knew.
March 2nd, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Ed,
Maybe I’m just cynical, but I’d be surprised if a single manager was laid off. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if they named a couple more AMEs in the coming weeks. So typical for this company.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:30 am
Has Gary Pruitt responded to the pay cut request? Think about it. Let’s be generous and consider an employee’s total cost to the company $100,000 a year. Ten employees would cost one million dollars a year. Take away Gary’s 4 million in pay last year above the asked for $500,000 cap and the company could save 40 jobs… and maybe the quality of our paper. That’s substantial.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:09 pm
anonymous Says:
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:30 am
You are soooo right, but I’ll bet Pruitt or anyone else at his “level” has never once realistically considered taking a paycut. Thats like sacrilegious. Pruitt doesn’t give a rats about you, me, our jobs OR the Bee.
I sure wish he did. I still LOVE the Bee
March 4th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Best of luck. More bad news is coming, I fear.
March 4th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
good luck on the vote…you need to think hard and long before you trust any of the Bee senior management staff. THINK you can find work and the Bee will lose good people who do solid work and get rewarded with a show of the door
do not get screwed…show the powers where the power really resides. the union has let you down and did not go to the mat for you so much for power in numbers…Guild is nothing more than a spoke person for the Bee. you pay and you gained absolutely zerofro your money…same as the banks are doing….! THINK !!!!
March 4th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Dorida,
Your comments about the union are not fair. Did you help with membership drives?
Hank
March 5th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
you are a bunch of wandering fools. do you really think the Bee gives a hoot and a holla about any of you. you are a great staff look what this paper was..Pulitzer winners, investigators, deligent sales people you made this paper what it is…and this is the reward you get a quick shove out the door. McClatchy stock is .41 cents and Pruitt is not dropping his salary one cent..shame on him and more importantly shame on the people for letting this happen..who has a no strike clause in Union contract that is the only voice a person has is the right to be heard…and if you had that clause you would be heard when the newsroom was empty as a strike was called to make the bee negotiate in good faith and come up with other options to save money. Hell let the “family” buy back the stock and go private and tell wall street to shove it like they are the knowledgeable ones! I love you all and you did great work and this paper is better off for what you did and this is not the way to go out the door…stand up for what is right!!!
March 5th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Dorida,
Please let us struggle with our own decisions. We are not fools. We all love what we do. We all have our personal reasons for how we will vote. It will not help me at all to make up my mind by being called a fool.
Again, this is a tough decision for all of us. I welcome your arguments — but do not call us names, do not question our integrity and do not call us fools for doing what we think is right for our own situations — whether voting YES or NO.
Having said that, thank you for recognizing that the paper has employees that should be shown the utmost respect and be accorded the value we all deserve.
March 5th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
I am sorry that “fools” comment was not meant to be so offensive.. I have seen the work of the Bee newsroom writers and you are being TREATED like fools by the bee is what I meant to say..I apologize big time…GOD BLESS you and give you the insight to vote what is REALLY right.
I love you folks and the work you have done!
March 10th, 2009 at 7:14 am
[...] News (watch the video documentary), multiple Philadephia area newspapers, Bellingham Herald, Sacramento Bee… and the list goes on and on and [...]