Newspaper, union sparring over cuts

With a crucial vote on the concessions scheduled for Monday, the company continues to insist it needs the savings to continue operating the paper. But many union members are balking at the severity of the cuts, and union leaders, while officially taking no position on how members should vote, are signaling in various ways that they wouldn't be displeased with a vote against the contract changes.

Unlike other unions' leaders, the Guild's did not reach a tentative agreement with the Times Co. on concessions, but said only that they would bring the company's final offer to their members for a vote. Guild president Daniel Totten has said he will vote "no."

In a memo to Guild employees yesterday, Globe publisher P. Steven Ainsley said gaining $10 million in savings from the union is "non-negotiable," and that management will take steps to immediately impose a 23 percent across-the-board wage cut should union members reject the company's offer.

"We do not want to take this action," Ainsley wrote. "We feel the proposed contract you will soon vote on, as difficult as it may be, is a more manageable way for employees to absorb the compensation reductions."

The concessions demanded from the Guild represent about half of those that the Times Co., which earlier had threatened to shutter the newspaper, has sought from Globe unions. So far, five other bargaining units have ratified contracts that together would account for about $8 million in savings.

Under agreements with other unions, the concessions won't take effect unless the company gains $10 million in savings from the Guild, Ainsley wrote.

"The Globe will have no alternative other than to take all steps necessary to implement a 23 percent wage cut for all Guild members immediately," he said.

Guild leaders have told union members they would quickly launch legal challenges to block management from imposing such pay cuts. Totten called Ainsley's memo "more of the same. It's intimidation and bullying."

In a letter to members sent shortly before Ainsley's memo, Totten sharply criticized Times Co. management for not sharing the sacrifices, noting that nonunion managers received bonuses earlier this year, while most Guild members have gone four years without a pay raise.

He added that other local media companies have imposed higher pay cuts on managers than on the rank-and-file.

"That's one way to cope with such a challenge - sharing the pain and being a true partner with workers," Totten said. "It's just not the Times Co.'s way. Instead, they have created fear among the rank-and-file, and displayed favor for special interests of management."

Ainsley's memo dealt with union concerns that management wasn't making enough sacrifices. He said the recent elimination of bonuses means that nonunion managers will see their total earnings cut by at least 15 percent over the next year.

Ainsley also addressed a recent petition by some Guild members that called on him to limit pay cuts to 5 percent, the same imposed on nonunion managers this year. Ainsley said he couldn't respond directly to that proposal because the company, under the law, can negotiate only with the Guild's official bargaining team.

But, he said, the financial situation is too urgent to begin another round of negotiations.

Scott Allen, a reporter and petition organizer, said the company has the power to change its contract offer, and the union, if necessary, could act quickly.

"We're not talking a complete rewrite of this proposal," Allen said. "We all know that we have to make sacrifices - and soon - so we don't need these constant threats to reach an agreement."

Robert Gavin can be reached at rgavin@globe.com.