Today's Globe question: what makes an impasse?

Published Jun 17 2009, 01:59 PM by Adam Reilly

Beat the Press blogger Ralph Ranalli notes an interesting contradiction regarding the ongoing Times Co.-Boston Newspaper Guild negotiations:

My question is this: Since the imposition of the 23 percent wage cut was based on the Times claim of a bargaining "impasse," how Times officials be participating in marathon bargaining sessions yet asserting an impasse at the same time? Someone help me with this.

I can't provide a definitive answer. But it seems to me that two points are worth highlighting here.

First, as I wrote in this week's Phoenix, at least one labor-law specialist--Professor Angela Cornell, who directs Cornell University's labor-law clinic--believes the Times Co.'s impasse claim may have been questionable from the outset. Thus far, however, no legal authority has kept the company from making the claim and proceeding accordingly. So if you're the Times Co., why not press on with the claim of impasse and the ensuing wage cut, even if circumstances have changed?

Second, it seems that the Times Co. and the Guild are only negotiating now because the 23-percent wage cut was implemented. If the Guild had rejected the Times Co.'s last contract proposal, and the Times Co. hadn't ramped up the pressure by implementing the cut in question, the Guild would be operating from a position of far greater strength than it currently is. Rescind the cut, in other words, and the talks could break down altogether.

| More

Scrappy tabloid scribe allegedly too scrappy

Guild, Times Co. inching toward agreement?

3 Comments

Lylah said:

The way I understand it, they needed to be able to declare impasse in order to impose the 23% cut, but they don't necessarily need to be at impasse in order to continue to implement it. Also: NYT has been very careful to call the recent confabs "meetings" and not "negotiations" -- maybe that has something to do with the impasse, maybe not.

Re: your second point -- NYT's agreement with the other unions at the Globe were contingent upon NYT getting $10M in savings from the Guild, voluntarily or involuntarily. The 23% cut does that; if they rescind the cut, they could jeopardize their agreements with the other unions.

June 17, 2009 5:24 PM
Mike Saunders said:

Adam, impasses can last for years with periods of negotiation. An impasse at the Salem News lasted 5 1/2 years. IIRC, a Globe impasse in the mid 90s lasted almost two.

June 17, 2009 5:27 PM
InsiderNegot said:

Impasse is not just an expression, it is a legal term. The NYT doesn't really care and won't have to prove anyting.

Once Impasse is declared, the union has the option of going to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and argue that they are not at a legal impasse. While they may win in the end, the process can take months. Months that members are suffering under a 23% pay cut.

Guild leadership took a calculated risk that the Globe would not impose the 23% cut if the proposal was voted down. They lost that bet. They have apparently decided now that either their NLRB case is weak or that they do not want or cannot politically fight the Globe for months while their members suffer the wage cut.

You can be sure that any deal done now will require the withdrawal of the Guild's NLRB charges.

June 21, 2009 1:31 AM