Back in December, I wrote that former Boston Newspaper Guild head Dan Totten's quest to get his job back could be undercut by a Department of Labor audit--which found that multiple violations of the federal Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act had occurred on Totten's watch. But I wasn't able to obtain the audit itself.
Like my former colleague Dan Kennedy, I've wondered whether Dan Totten's ouster as head of the Boston Newspaper Guild might be connected to Totten's hardline stance during acrimonious contract negotiations with the New York Times Co. earlier this year.
But according to Globe reporter Maria Cramer--who chaired the trial board that found Totten guilty of assorted charges yesterday, and subsequently expelled him from the union--that's absolutely, positively not the case.
The Globe story of the moment is the (possibly) impending sale of the paper--but mounting resistance to a new, high-cost health plan among the members of the paper's biggest union is a noteworthy subplot.
Earlier this afternoon, a letter went out from more than 100 employees to publisher Steve Ainsley. They're asking management to restore a "significant portion" of $1.
Just received an email sent from several Globe staffers to the leadership of the Boston Newspaper Guild (with the exception of the embattled Dan Totten), in which they ask the union to find some way to avoid implementation of what sounds like a very bare-bones healthcare plan.
In terms of management-union and intra-union dynamics at the Globe, what's really striking is the paragaph in which the signers claim they received misleading information from the NYT Co.
Fascinating twist in the battle for control of the Boston Newspaper Guild, the Globe's biggest union: the Guild's executive board has taken action against Guild head Dan Totten for (if I'm reading the legalese correctly) allegedly inappropriate handling of union finances. The email sent to Guild members this afternoon follows; I'll post more as the situation develops.
My first thought, when I heard about the tentative agreement struck
by management and the Boston Newspaper Guild last night, was that Guild
head Dan Totten must be patting himself on the back right now. After
all, Totten's non-endorsement of the contract proposal rejected by the
Guild last month was predicated on the assumption that he could get a better offer from the Times Co
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.
So reports WGBH-TV's Ralph Ranalli--who also suggests that those pesky lifetime-job guarantees will get the axe if a deal is done.
--First, I've got a new Phoenix piece looking at the Times Co.'s plans for the Globe and why the Guild caved on lifetime-job guarantees earlier this week.
--Former Globe contributor Michael Jonas, who's now at Commonwealth magazine, has made a pretty strong case that the Globe is taking too much credit for its "scoops" on MA pension abuse.
My close personal friend Dan Kennedy suggests that the Times Co.'s proposed 23 percent pay cut for Boston Newspaper Guild members will unify the union--kind of like management's late-breaking math error did last week.
I've got a different take. The pay-cut proposal strikes me as the Times Co.'s way of saying: You won't compromise on lifetime-job guarantees? Here's what your intransigence will get you.
Readers of this blog know I've been alternately critical of and sympathetic to Dan Totten--the head of the Boston Newspaper Guild, the sole remaining holdout in negotiations with Globe management and the NYT Co.
Given my own inconsistency, I'm not quite ready to say that today's Herald story proves that Totten is a leech who's been using his post to enrich himself.
In which I relate details from Marty Baron's Seaport Hotel speech, the most recent Boston Newspaper Guild meeting, and last week's Save the Globe rally--and explain why the Globe's closure would be a disaster for Boston.
In today's Herald, Christine McConville reports on dissension in the ranks of the Boston Newspaper Guild as possible closure by the New York Times Co. looms--a subject I've been interested in for quite a while, and that I'll be examining further in a story that'll be online later today.
In a previous post on this subject, I intimated that Guild head Dan Totten had jumped the gun in ruling out certain concessions before tabulating the results of a survey distributed to union members the day before.
What's the line-up of today's Save-the-Globe fete at Faneuil Hall, you ask? Here it is (remember, the procedings start at noon):
Brian Mooney, Boston Globe reporterBella English, Boston Globe reporterMike Ross, Boston City Council PresidentDavid Jackson, Nieman Fellow and Pulitzer Prize winning reporter from the Chicago Tribune
Here's the latest statement from the Boston Newspaper guild, the Globe's largest union, on what it is and isn't prepared to offer in negotiations with the NYT Co.
The requests that jumped out at me are flagged in the title of this post: the Guild wants to negotiate publicly, enter into a revenue-sharing agreement with the Times Co.