Sides gird as Guild vote looms

The contract vote, scheduled for Monday, will decide whether the Boston Newspaper Guild accepts a package of wage and benefit cuts that include salary reductions, furloughs, and unpaid vacation that total about 9 percent of pay; significant increases in healthcare premiums; the elimination of company contributions to 401(k) retirement plans; and a pension freeze. The package also includes the elimination of lifetime job guarantees for about 170 veteran members.

If the contract is rejected, members will continue to endure a 23 percent pay cut imposed by the paper’s owner, The New York Times Co., after the union narrowly rejected a similar package of concessions in early June. The Times Co. has said it needs $10 million in savings from the Guild to right the paper, whether through a combination of wage and benefit cuts or a giant pay cut.

The Guild is the only major union at the Globe not to approve concessions the Times Co. said it needed to keep operating the money-losing newspaper.

The choice faced by the nearly 700 editorial, advertising, and business office workers represented by the Guild, suggests another close vote. The last contract failed by just 12 votes of more than 500 cast.

Guild president Daniel Totten said the outcome is “hard to gauge.’’

The run-up to the vote, however, has been roiled in recent days by Totten’s distribution of an analysis that estimates the union’s healthcare plan will be able to cut premiums by about 70 percent if the contract is rejected to offset some of the 23 percent pay cut. The premiums would fall because the company, under the current contract, is required to make more than $300,000 in contributions to the healthcare fund over the next year at a time when the number of employees in the plan has declined significantly, through layoffs, buyouts, and people switching to their spouse’s insurance, said Bonnie Hanisch, the union’s benefits consultant.

Hanisch also distributed an analysis that estimates Guild members would not be much worse off with a 23 percent pay cut than with the package of wage and benefit cuts. For example, in addition to the lower healthcare premiums, employees could significantly cut their personal 401(k) contributions to offset the wage cut since the company would still have to make pension contributions, she said.

The accuracy of the analyses are disputed by supporters and the company. Globe spokesman Robert Powers said, “Unfortunately the benefits analysis they received is inaccurate and misleading. We are sending out information that we hope will clarify the issues around healthcare costs.’’

The distribution of the analyses led some members to charge that union leaders are encouraging rejection despite their agreement with the company to endorse and recommend the contract proposal.

Totten and Hanisch said the analyses were prepared at the requests of members and distributed merely to share information. Totten said the union leadership continues to support the contract offer. Asked how he’ll vote, Totten said, “I endorse it.’’

The union leadership’s endorsement is among the differences between the upcoming vote and the one in June. Guild leaders brought the first package to members without recommending it, but signaled they wouldn’t be unhappy if it was rejected.

Another difference: Supporters, who largely stood on the sidelines in the run-up to first vote, have launched a “yes’’ campaign. Donovan Slack, a reporter who yesterday distributed “Vote Yes’’ flyers, said she didn’t want to risk losing again by just a handful of votes.

“I think it’s important to be vocal about my support for this deal, not necessarily because I think it’s a good deal, but because I think it’s the best deal we’re going to get,’’ she said. “I can’t live with a 23 percent pay cut.’’

Meanwhile, some members who voted “no’’ in June said they’ll vote “yes’’ this time.

“I’m tired of it all. I feel we have to move on,’’ said Beth Daley, a reporter who opposed the first contract offer. “It’s not a good deal, but it’s a negotiated deal, one the union has signed off on, so let’s move forward.’’

Still, opposition remains strong. Opponents argue the Times Co. is imposing deeper cuts on rank-and-file workers than management. They also say the new package is no improvement from the one they rejected.

“This contract is as bad, or maybe worse, than the last one, so there was no reason to change my vote from no to yes,’’ said Diane Wanders Fedele, an ad account executive who has worked at the Globe for 26 years. “I think it will pass because people are afraid they are going to lose their jobs, but I believe a number of jobs will be lost anyway.’’

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