Good times on Morrissey Boulevard.
The Boston Globe’s largest union tonight narrowly rejected $10 million in wage and benefit cuts, and the paper’s owner prepared to quickly impose a 23 percent pay cut on the union’s members.
Such a move by the New York Times Co., will almost certainly move the bitter contract dispute from the bargaining table to the National Labor Relations Board and federal courts.
And that could take a long time to sort out.
[T]hese cases can drag on for months, [if] not years. The Detroit newspaper strike of 1995 was launched after management declared an impasse in contract negotiations and imposed its own conditions on union workers. The case was litigated into the next decade.
“There is no litmus test that the bargaining is in good faith,” said [BC law prof Thomas] Kohler. “It’s a messy process and it can be lengthy.”
And the stakes are really high for both sides:
Guild members would likely have to live with onerous pay cut until the case is resolved because courts rarely grant orders to block such moves while the cases are being litigated, according to the labor law specialists. On the other hand, the Times Co. could be liable for millions of dollars in back salaries and interest should Guild challenge eventually succeed.
Let’s hope they can work something out, though one can’t call the early signs exactly encouraging. At some point, it may fall to the Governor to call up Dan Totten and Steven Ainsley with one of those “Tomorrow, 2 pm, my office” messages. He obviously can’t make them do anything. But that approach does sometimes bear fruit.
How can this be an impasse situation? The current contract has not yet expired, has it? I though that an impasse can only be declared if there is no current contract. Otherwise you can’t change what has already been signed.
Appears to be a point of dispute between the parties.
<
p>
Did notice deeply buried in the Saturday page A2 that subscriber rates are going to $1.50 per day also. $50 a month is too much; dropping the paper; when a newspaper outstrips broadband access, guess which one loses. Don’t want to, but $600/year for a newspaper subscription is out of line, to say the least.
<
p>Also consider looking at the A Section sometime off of page 1, and count number of articles that aren’t syndicated. Goodbye Globe, been nice knowing you.
one report says the Globe still had 300 reporters (please correct if wrong) and I wonder what they all do. Mike is right… the vast majority of news in the Globe is from AP and other agencies. What are all the Globe reporters doing?
<
p>I heard 3 people at a graduation party Sunday repeat Mike’s remark that $49/month was the last straw and all were canceling this week. I’m hoping to see them go and go quickly.
that is a 4 week subscription, so there are 13 of those in a year, or $637, plus tips to the carrier for home delivery.
A few 7-day delivery charges found out there (eliminating any introductory discounts):
<
p>Washington Post: $6.17 per week, $320.84 annual
Chicago Tribune: $4.75 per week, $247.00 annual
Los Angeles Times: $6.00 per week, $312.00 annual
San Francisco Chronicle: $7.75 per week, $403.00 annual
<
p>and now
Boston Globe $12.25 per week, $637.00 annual
<
p>Why?
Since when is the “vast majority” of the news in the Globe from the AP? Only if you ignore all of the stuff related to Boston and MA, which is why most people even read the paper. If all you want is national and international news, and don’t mind paying more, read the Times or the Washington Post.
<
p>In any case, the rate increase was described in a letter sent to subscribers, so this should be no surprise to subscribers.
Kevin, the Globe actually used to be a paper of consequence in the US. Now look at today’s Globe:
<
p>A Section: front page will have Globe bylines on the stories; everything else from page 2 on is syndicated (WaPo, NYT, Reuters, AP, Bloomberg). Shell of itself
<
p>B Section: “all the stuff related to Boston and MA” consists tops of 5 pages of Metro, then the business section.
<
p>C Section: sports is a pale imitation of the glory days in the 80s.
<
p>Paying a lot more for what is a shadow of a paper isn’t exactly a winning strategy.
I agree with Mike, that they are outpricing themselves. And apparently they are withdrawing the discount for those who “pay by recurring credit card”. Each one of these actions are certain to tip more subscribers away from them.
<
p>And with the heavy-handed “negotiations” with the employees we can all expect less quality in the content.
<
p>Pay more for less is a failed strategy.
The reporters may be pissed about the situation but most are not about to ruin their portfolio by writing crappy articles, especially when they may be looking for work soon.
Certainly not knocking Globe reporters at all; but when I can blow through the paper cover to cover in a half hour lunch (and doubling back a couple times to see if there is anything of interest), just looking for more, especially given a doubling in price over a short time span. Just not enough product left to justify the cost (is instructive, if you think about it, that the Globe has now crossed the line of their subscription cost exceeding broadband Internet costs).
<
p>Also puzzling that it is actually MORE expensive now for me to be a subscriber than to pick up at the local newsstand (even before tipping the delivery guy). Would anyone subscribe to a magazine where you didn’t save over face price?
all things must run their course. It appears as though the Globe is close to running to its end. That’s okay. Journalism in Boston will survive without the Boston Globe.
…the Herald becomes a real newspaper. Personally, I think a major city without a major newspaper is a journalistic travesty.
The Herald can still be a tabloid. Something will take the Globe’s place and offer real journalism. My belief, actually, is something offering better journalism (even if less of it) would emerge… or two to three more small papers/online news sites. There are already local weeklies covering city news and life much better than the Globe. You may not notice the new operations, because you don’t live in the city (I only notice it because of leftahead/elections stuff), but it’s in large part already happening. The Globe is in some part a vacuum that sucks up a lot of the opportunity to read some of the good news that’s coming out in the city.
Since I don’t live in the city as you point out that’s not what I care about, and get most of that from TV. I believe there is still a place for a daily “top-shelf” newspaper covering national and international news (with possibly a local angle) in cities the size of Boston.
The Boston Globe for national or international news?
<
p>The “local angle” seems overrated to me — and something you could still get from your Lynn Items, Boston Heralds and New Bedford Standard Times of the world.
<
p>I could see a justification/need for state house news if the Globe’s coverage of the state house were actually good, but even in that case, there’s plenty of other sources for state house news and more will emerge, especially if the vacuum of the Globe were to be plugged tight.
<
p>Don’t get me wrong, I’m not openly rooting for the demise of the Globe. I just don’t think they’re as important an institution as many, especially the Globe, would like to think. If it were truly that important, it wouldn’t be in trouble now.
These two parties need each other. They should compromise from self-interest, if not (evidently) love. It’s not as thought there is any doubt that the newspaper industry is in crisis, or that one alternative is shutting down the newspaper. That would be a stunning loss for the NYT Co. considering the price they paid for the newspaper, but presumably an even bigger loss for the union and the employees. Not to mention the community.
<
p>I think this pretty much sums things up. Kind of ironic, considering the industry the Globe is in.
The Guild tries to represent blocks of employees with very different backgrounds, perspectives, and interests. Clearly, that strain led to the breaking point here. I would not be at all surprised to see a decertification process beginning for the editoral (newsroom) employees. The reporters recognize the business is going to shrink dramatically, but the problems with respect to their positions are much more collective ones. Many of the business employees, on the other hand, have jobs that can be streamlined or eliminated with modern technology. I don’t see them taking a 23% cut to protect some old bull’s “lifetime employment guarantee” in the ad shop. The fact that he had the Jordan Marsh account in 1991 doesn’t have the same value today.
I was surprised to see that only 80% of the Guild members actually voted. I would have expected practically everyone to vote when jobs are on the line.
<
p>I also don’t understand why the Guild scheduled the vote this long after the proposal was made, especially if the leadership said they wanted to continue negotiation. If that were true, you would think they would want to get a no vote sooner so they could get back to the table.
<
p>The vote was very close, so perhaps the agreement only needs a little tweaking to get enough people to vote in favor.
All too often a deal is presented to members and within a day or two, they vote on it having only read a summary. Having a few weeks to actually read the document, hold meetings on what everything means, and really process the contract CAN be a sign that the negotiating committee is really involving the membership in the process – which I think more unions should do.
<
p>It could also be that the more time unfolds, the more the membership doesn’t buy the Times Co. argument that the financial situation is as dire as they’ve claimed which helps the vote no cause.