As of this writing, the midnight deadline is two hours away. And, apparently, there is as of yet no deal between the Globe’s unions and management.
Boston Globe management has summoned the leaders of three of the newspaper’s major unions to the site of ongoing negotiations with the Boston Newspaper Guild, telling them to be prepared to “enter negotiations or receive a message from the company,” union officials said. With just hours before a midnight deadline that could determine the future of the Boston Globe, the paper’s owner, the New York Times Co, has yet to reach deals with any of the Globe’s four major unions over $20 million dollars in total concessions it says it needs to keep operating the newspaper….
Union officials have have said they have met, or are close to providing the financial concessions sought by the Times Co. But negotiations have become tangled by Times Co. demands for changes in contract language, such as the elimination of lifetime job guarantees for veteran members in some unions.
Doesn’t sound terribly promising, though a lot can happen at the last minute in these kinds of situations. Still, I continue to predict that we will see a shutdown of some sort (though it seems that labor laws will not permit the Times to “stop the presses” (to coin a phrase) immediately — rather, they may give notice that they intend to do so).
UPDATE (12:30 a.m. — why am I still up?): There’s still no deal, and Globe management apparently has shown the unions the plant closing notice, required under the WARN Act, that they will file tomorrow if no deal is struck. Even if they file the notice, which is looking likely, the paper will continue to be published during the 60-day notice period. Presumably, if the sides work things out during that time, they can decide to stay open. However, it does sound as though there’s no love lost between the two sides:
The Guild, in a statement, decried the management move: “This tactic, while expected, is representative of the bullying manner in which the Times Company has conducted itself during these negotiations. Despite the Company’s hostile tactics, we continue to negotiate in good faith and work diligently toward an acceptable outcome.”
Couple that with the Guild’s radio ad (scroll down) that more or less lumps Pinch Sulzberger in with AIG executives, and you’ve got a recipe for a long standoff.
the globe could find a way to placate the unions but had to ditch their liberal bent in favor of a conservative one?
<
p>Or, would it be better to remain a leftist advocate but throw the unions under the bus?
<
p>On the other side we seem to be short on reasons to save the globe, other than “its no good to shut down a source of news”.
<
p>Personally I’m not too sympathetic.
<
p>
In the Northeast, Research 2000’s polls show
<
p>
FavorableUnfavorable
Republican Party6%88%
Democratic Party72%19%
From such statistics, who the heck would decide that a “ditching a liberal bent” would do the Globe any good?
<
p>Someone has been drinking too much tea?
So I guess you’d favor throwing the unions under the bus?
<
p>Frankly, given the choice, I’d agree.
<
p>
In 2006, I frequently accused you of regarding everything like a video game in which real lives were not involved.
<
p>Today, the same. Only now, we have expendable union workers standing in for the expendable Iraqis.
The economics of newspapers have simply changed. There are fewer subscribers. Want ad revenue has disappeared. I do not know how to solve this problem. I expect to see a lot of newspapers go out of business and I hope the republic is not hurt too much by their loss. This is something that calls for innovation. A demand still exists for information.
The polling is from Research 2000 whose results were rather accurate last election cycle. (See link.) These are commissioned by Daily Kos.
I’m impressed that you were able to both find an Iraq link (just when I thought Iraq might be getting old!) and provide me some more free psychoanalysis all in one line, and while we’re talking about the globe and unions to boot!
<
p>So, just to be clear because I think some of my attempted humor is falling on rejecting ears: The great IRONY of the situation is that both the NYT and the Globe have been pro union stalwarts basically forever. But the problem with unions is that they are, essentially, a cancer that eventually destroys anything they infect. (See: GM, Chrysler, Teachers Unions vs. everything good for children, who’s next?) So now the lefty papers have to come out and deal with the “reality” of the union cancer in their own shop, and voila you have a beautiful little battle.
<
p>So like the NYT has dropped a bunch of precision JDAMs on the unions, shock-and-awe style, and the union anti aircraft fire seems ineffectual. Where are the human shields? Hiding behind their BMG keyboards I’m afraid. On the other hand, the government is over there in the corner looking menacing… How will this play out?
<
p>Woops I was in an Iraq video game again.
<
p>
than someone who thinks he is funny but is not.
to have no sense of humor
<
p>[Mr. Burns is reminiscing about his grandfather’s old Atom Smashing Plant]
<
p>Burns’ Grandfather: Come on, men! Smash those atoms! You there, turn out your pockets.
<
p>[Two goons seize a waifish worker and turn out his pockets]
<
p>Burns’ Grandfather: Aha – atoms! One, two, three, four… SIX of them! Take him away!
<
p>Waif: You can’t treat the working man this way! One of these days we’ll form a union, and get the fair and equitable treatment we deserve! Then we’ll go too far, and become corrupt and shiftless, and the Japanese will eat us alive!
<
p>Burns’ Grandfather: The Japanese? Those sandal-wearing goldfish tenders? Ha ha! Bosh! Flimshaw!
<
p>
Blaming other people for not getting your lame jokes is pathetic. You ever see a comic try to make fun of the audience when they aren’t laughing at his jokes? It doesn’t work. Instead of whining about people not appreciating your humor, you should just move on and try again another day.
The unions at the Boston Globe have chosen to effectively “close” the paper and collectively lose ALL THEIR JOBS rather than give in to concessions. Is it me or is there some level of stubbornness which enters stupidity? They will ALL lose their jobs because they didn’t want to reduce their pay, benefits/perks, hours… This is a not a strike, it is survival. I have played this scenario out on BMG as the owner of a company trying to survive and fighting a union hellbent on holding their ground. My solution was to do what the ownership is doing, bargain of we shut the doors and I’m happy they are going to shut the doors. Hopefully there won’ be some last minute deal cut with Gov Patrick saving the day.
<
p>I hope the Globe closes and union management takes it on the chin.
and all of the unions have made substantial concessions.
<
p>The remaining issue doesn’t appear to be the monetary amount but management’s insistence on removing all employment guarantees.
<
p>The Times would not be negotiating if they did not think the Globe would be profitable in the future and want to maximize that future profit as much as they want to minimize their current losses. The unions want to make sure that they don’t give up too much. Both sides have reasonable concerns.
<
p>
Ezra Klein links here to the literature on the effect of unionization on enterprises. For example, see this PDF
<
p>This is a difficult thing to measure because, in social science, you don’t get to construct many experiments. The leading researchers in the field, DiNardo and Lee, came up with the idea of comparing companies where the union barely won certification election to ones where the union barely lost. The research has do something like that because one might imagine that the easy targets of unionization would differ substantially from the companies where it never happens.
<
p>Other researchers have taken their methodology and applied it to other period.
<
p>What the resulting numbers and evidence show is that unionization has no substantial effect on the viability of firms.
<
p>That doesn’t sound like cancer to me.
There’s a natural contraint that keeps Unions from becoming too powerful. Wages get to high, then the Union ends or the business ends. Seems the Globe things logically playing itself out and let the Unions fight it out with the Man.
<
p>Same can’t be said of the Public Sector Unions where the Unions are the Unions, and the Man is us. There’s no natural barrier to the Union growth and they can rightly be said to be cancerous – evidence GIC resistance, paid details, Quinn Bill, 90% medical coverage, contractual step raises, tenure.
If I get your point, then, it’s that the Globe‘s unions cannot become cancerous due to the market, but public sector ones can be.
<
p>And you call yourself reality-based!
<
p>
Here, ladies and gentlemen, is another example of the Rush Limbaugh Rules of Evidence. Quoting my earlier comment:
Truth. Anything a conservative thinks is common sense must be true. Only pointy-headed misguided liberals as portrayed in Mallard Fillmore would disagree with the facts as discovered by the unerring common sense of conservatives.
This is why I think Old Scratch and gary are such great additions to our conversation. They both prove one can be conservative without being anti-intellectual.
I never listen to Rush, but I’d like to some time. I do read Mark Steyn though, who is hilarious and insightful:
<
p>
<
p>What to do when GM dies? Well, jump to Toyota of course!
<
p>
<
p>As an aside, did you notice the Chrysler is in bankruptcy? Now I think the UAW owns more than 50% of it. I’m sure that will work out well.
<
p>Hello! Reality calling!
<
p>
“unionization had no substantial effect on the viability of GM and Chrysler”
<
p>Now that’s intellectual!
In response to a serious study by academics, you wallpaper the right margin with a frequent Limbaugh guest and cultural critic not an economist who comments not on carefully controlled data but on two salient examples.
<
p>Yes, I’m sure you think your and Steyn’s “conservative common sense” is all you need to figure things out.
Perhaps it’s one of the five stages of grief — possibly bargaining.
then why does the Herald, to this day, have much lower circulation?
<
p>but thanks for throwing the straw man. That was fun.
and if liberal bents are so great, I might ask why the globe is about to go under?
<
p>
wouldn’t logic indicate that the political bent of the paper is not the issue, then?
The Herald will see a big upswing in circulation soon… I hope.
…it will be the only newspaper in town (though I’m not sure how one categorizes the Phoenix). Besides, does anybody really think that having a liberal bent (if of course you accept that bent as fact, and I’m not sure I do) is a liability in MASSACHUSETTS of all places?!
Maybe the Herald will be more moderate and do what I believe newspapers should do… report the news.
because the Herald is a crappy paper that will not appeal to most of the Globe’s existing readers. Hardly anyone takes it when they have given it out for free at South Station.
<
p>Of course, the Herald’s circulation is much smaller than the Globe’s, so they would probably be happy to capture even a small fraction of the Globe’s readers.
There is absolutely no evidence that whatever bias the Globe has, either real or imagined, hurts the paper’s bottom line more than it helps it. Give it a rest.
I have no evidence is does hurt but I don’t think anyone has contrary info either. As long as it goes away I don’t care what the reason is.
It is not whether the perception of a liberal bent hurts the Globe — it clearly does with some potential readers such as yourself — it is whether it pushes away more readers than it attracts. For that, you need non-anecdotal evidence.
is because they captured Sally Forth.
<
p>Is that strip still running in the Herald?
I just wanted to point out that even your straw man fails.
<
p>
<
p>because it’s so much bigger. All those extra papers and subscriptions the Globe’s passing around is very, very costly to pass around – even selling them at more than $1 a print. It’s always cost more to print a paper than to sell it, even in the best of times. Papers make money selling ads. So having a larger distribution network doesn’t necessarily mean the paper becomes that much more profitable. It depends on the cost of the distribution and how much those added numbers delivers to the ability of the paper to increase ad costs. This is why a lot of papers across the country have started to stop distributing on some of the most off-peak days, something the Globe should strongly consider.
Business question: would you a) rather have a large circulation and lose money or b) have a small circulation and be profitable.
… but this points to circulation rather than political bent possibly being the salient factor, of course.
If I’m not mistaken, there are a handful of conservative newspapers whose losses have been covered for years by the deep-pocketed. Both The Nation and its nemesis The National Review are charities as much as they are magazines.
Weekly Standard
American Spectator
Washington Times
<
p>Mellon-Scaife and/or Moonie money has quite the reach.
the globe could find a way to placate the unions but had to harvest the excrement of gumdrop pooping unicorns to do it?
<
p>See, I too can make up nonsensical hypotheticals. Yours is used to continue the SCLM line which is nonsense no matter how many times it’s repeated, and mine because I love to write about one horned horses dropping sugary treats.
<
p>
Boston Globe Still Alive As Talks Continue Past Midnight Deadline
and cut a deal.
<
p>If I were a young reporter at the Globe, I would be going batshit that my interests were supposedly being represented by a group of old bulls (many of whom aren’t even reporters) whose sole interest is to keep employment guarantees and seniority in place so they can squeeze out a few more years’ wages before retiring to the Cape.
<
p>As always, The Wire said it best:
<
p>Nicky Sobotka: Seniority sucks.
La-La: If you ain’t senior.
Seniority is a terrible idea. Older employees usually have higher wages, they’re more likely to use their health care and they demand things like home/life balance. The Globe would make much more money if they could just operate with a bunch of journalism school interns, hell, they probably could get a bunch of folks to work for free.
<
p>It’s like this weekend – I was fixing my vintage industrial loom, getting my hands into the small crevices is a huge pain, so I got my niece to come over. It was perfect, she’s just smart enough to help fix it, but her little hands can fit into spots I couldn’t reach without totally re-engineering the machine.
<
p>If I were just a few years from retiring, getting those last few years of work in so I would be able to retire might not seem like such a unreasonable position. Cutting a deal that gives the boss free reign to drive down wages hurts everyone in the long run.
I’m going to set aside your concerns about industrial accidents in the coal mines of writing news stories and selling advertising.
<
p>
Indeed, it might. It probably does not, however, represent the wishes of the majority of the other employees. And it almost certainly would not be the optimal outcome for all stakeholders involved — employees, customers, suppliers, management, etc. Hell, to paraphase your statement, if I were an investment banker, getting that seven-figure bonus with TARP money so I can get a third house and new cans for my wife might not seem like such a unreasonable position. Just because something is self-interested, doesn’t mean it’s a good thing.
<
p>
This is really the meat of the problem with the union’s position. The “long run” is going to look a hell of a lot different for these younger workers. In real dollars, they will never make as much as their older counterparts. If seniority is maintained, in fact, they will probably be laid off shortly after the agreement. They will have fewer and more costly benefits. They certainly will never have a “lifetime employment guarantee.” Why would you expect younger workers to buy into this system? Why should they sit by while the old-timers drive the company off a cliff?
The ludicrousness of my comment was obvious, I was pointing out that yours was equally so. Reporters are not rich and they are the best paid Guild members, so this implication that a bunch of greedy union hacks are just looking to squeeze every ounce of blood out of the globe before they retire to their houses on the cape is way off base.
<
p>
and where exactly does the interest of killing off seniority come from? You’re advocating a self-interested position, just the (short term) self interest of the minority of the least senior workers.
<
p>The contract needs to be ratified by the majority of members, so if the deal doesn’t represent the majority of workers, it will be rejected. Younger workers will likely be laid off, but unlike someone with a retirement horizon of 5-10 years, they have a much longer horizon. They can switch careers, go back to school, get a job in an industry with better prospects. Is is pleasant? no – but it’s the fairest system we’ve come up with. Your suggestion hurts those who can least afford to be hurt the most and ignores the years of work more senior employees have put into the paper. Someone’s going to get laid off here, you’re saying it should a bunch of rich “old bulls” with no care for the future – I say they’re likely looking to keep the union strong at the paper so young workers can get their due if the organization can survive.
<
p>Seniority is good public policy – it protects workers who are more expensive, would have a harder time finding work and therefore there’s a market incentive to get rid of them. Since seniors are the group most likely to be living in poverty, contracts that keep seniors working reduces the number who will require public assistance.
<
p>The Newspaper Guild is the one organizations out there that’s working towards a world where reporters are paid decently for their work. Advocating policies that even the boss isn’t looking for hurts the Guild and the future prospects of young reporters.
<
p>
Based on my experience in a union, seniority protects those who don’t want to work at the expense of the younger ones who must.
If more senior workers aren’t doing an adequate job, then you’ve got a reason to fire them. That, however, is a problem with management not doing its job.
Unions are what protects those guys not managers.
It wasn’t management that treated me like a piece of crap because I worked too hard, and made them look bad.
Which were being enforced by the more senior people. And while I do sympathize with what you’re saying, the whole notion of rate setting, and rate busting – which is the other way to look at what you were doing – is complicated.
if any company wants to wipe out a section because it under performs, it can do so. If the Globe wants to do it, it has to make sure that no one in that section worked there before the NYT buyout. And if someone did, then they have to find a new spot for them in a different department, whether they have the skills and expertise for that work or not.
<
p>That extends a little past your metaphor. Normally, I agree with that PoV: you fire all the oldskoolers and you get a bunch of people with little experience and a distinct reduction in quality of product. However, that’s already happening at the Globe — they’re just enticing people with buyouts so far.
Ezra had a salient point today:
The hundreds of millions in payments the NYT is paying on debt alone is a big hindrance on the Globe’s ability to turn a profit, even if not to the extent that it is at the Trib company.
<
p>The times and internet competition certainly is taking its toll on the industry, but mismanagement, stupid buyouts and the flailing economy are playing a far larger role IMO.
even if Ezra were right, wouldn’t the Globe be in a better position to compete nationally on the ‘net if it weren’t gutted by the NYT? Rumor has it, it was once a widely respected paper across the entire country, just below the likes of the NYT, instead of just a shoddy metro paper with a decent sports section.
Story