June 13, 2005
Management Shipping More Editorial Jobs to India;
Guild Says Move Reveals Real Reason For Rush to Vote
More Guild-represented Editorial work will be sent offshore as Bangalore will begin producing earnings tables of all U.S. companies, “including S&P 500 companies as of the next earnings period,” RAM editorial manager Betty Wong told the Guild last month.
In a letter dated May 2 that only came to the attention of the Guild in early June, Wong also declared that Reuters “plans to move all production of text stories about companies based solely on electronic material” to the new off-shore editorial plant in Bangalore.
The letter was addressed only to the two Guild officials who managers knew would not be able to see it until after the middle of May, by which time management negotiators had hoped Guild members would have voted on management’s proposals for a new contract. The letter sent to New York Guild President Barry Lipton was never received.
“Management had pushed strongly and unseemly for a quick vote, knowing they were going to announce that more jobs were under the knife,” Guild President Barry Lipton said. “But we were adamant that no vote be held until details were fully explained. Now we know at least one reason why management tried to rush Guild members to vote on their deceptive proposals.”
Guild: Wong Tried To Sneak Letter by Members before Vote
The letter came to the Guild’s attention only when Unit Chairman Peter Szekely received his copy after returning from what management knew was a month-long absence. The letter was addressed to Lipton, who had told negotiators he would out of town till the middle of May, but there is no record of it having been received, either by mail or by fax.
“If they really wanted us to read it immediately, they would have sent copies to those of us who they knew were here in New York,” Guild Secretary-Treasurer Bill O’Meara said. O’Meara remained at the Guild during Lipton and Szekely’s absences. Although, during this period of time, he led talks with management representatives, at least one of whom had been copied in on the letter, none of the managers ever mentioned it to O’Meara.
Guild Sees Editorial Members As Vulnerable As Technicians
Among management’s unacceptable proposals is the right to slash Technicians’ employment security from the current hire date of January 1, 1991 to Jan. 1, 1985 by the end of the proposed new contract. In a bid to turn Guild members against each other, management agreed to increase job security somewhat for Editorial and smaller groups of employees to January 1, 1996. But management also insists on being able to subcontract 50 jobs in each and every year of a new contract, many more than under the old contract.
“Wong’s letter, coupled with management’s insistence on being able to subcontract a higher number of jobs, makes it clear that Editorial members are just as vulnerable to losing jobs as Technicians,” said Szekely. “It makes it crucial that we send management a strong message by rejecting their proposals.”
Guild Uncovers More Problems in Management’s Language
Meanwhile, in a meeting on June 7, the Guild continued to press management to explain what Guild negotiators say is management’s sloppy and deceptive wording of their proposals.
Management negotiators finally gave more details for the Summary Plan Description (SPD), which describes the terms of our medical coverage. The Guild is still waiting for the fourth version of the company’s contract language promised more than two weeks ago.
Management had told the Guild that the SPD would be unchanged except where management specified a change. But that, the Guild discovered, is not accurate.
In fact, the Guild’s healthcare consultant issued a report with seven pages of mistakes, omissions, and erroneous additions that the company had made in preparing the new SPD. “The SPD and management’s contract language are a minefield that could blow up our rights and benefits if we accepted them,” Szekely said.
For example, language in the original version of the SPD gave management the right to change our health coverage at will. The Guild rejected that wording last month and subsequently discovered management had slipped in other language with the same effect.
In another example, management’s main negotiators – Rob Doherty, Glen Russo and Ron Sparacino, led by two outside lawyers from the anti-union law firm Jackson Lewis – gave the Guild language, allowing them to take away rights for members returning from leaves of absences.
Preventative Care or Prevent Care?
Management also doctored the SPD to enable them to charge members on maternity leave more for health insurance if they were out more than three months.
And the previous SPD had several references to mammograms. But management’s new version mentions the test only once and limits it to just one per year. O’Meara asked if a false positive result would count as the one covered test, leaving our members to pay for all follow-ups. The Guild had asked that last month. Management did not respond until we raised it again on Tuesday and then only to say they would look into it.
Management negotiators also changed the required hours working on a VDTs to be eligible for new vision lenses from 17.5 hours to 26. Again, only after the Guild uncovered the change did management agree to correct it.
Management also changed co-pays for mental/nervous and substance abuse treatment to $25 from $20. Now they say they’ll change it back.
Election Day Difficult to Predict; Guild Reps Urge Rejection
With all of the problems about management’s proposals, it is difficult to predict when it will be safe to conduct a vote. The Guild and management have scheduled a meeting for June 20. The Guild had indicated that it was available to meet on earlier dates. We will keep members posted on the talks. Guild negotiators, however, believe the proposals are fundamentally flawed and should be overwhelmingly rejected.
Wong’s letter also said that “we envision having U.S. reporters on the ground concentrating on initiative and value-add (sic) reporting, updates, stock market reporting, etc.”
The question is, how many Guild members will be left on the ground? The Guild will be asking that question when it meets with Wong tomorrow.
# # # # #
06/13/05