March 7, 2001

 S&P  NEGOTIATORS  SAY  THEY  HAD THE  MOST  HONORABLE  OF  INTENTIONS

            The lead negotiator for Standard & Poor’s said last week that the company wasn’t trying to bilk us with its proposal to pay us twice a month instead of weekly. 

            Speaking at a session held at 55 Water Street, Stephen J. Macri, an attorney with the firm of Putney, Twombly, Hall & Hirson, said he had read in our most recent “Spotlight” how the formula for changing over, as it had been described to us, would end up costing us money. 

            Under the plan that had been described to the Guild, we would be paid on the 15th and the last day of each month.  The company would take our weekly hours, multiply by 52 and then divide by 24 to arrive at a figure for our twice-a-month payments. 

            Well, as our “Spotlight” pointed out, the formula would have picked our pockets – not a lot, but enough to argue about.  You see, there are actually more than 52 weeks in a year.  For accounting purposes, there are actually 52.178571 weeks in a year. 

            (Ironically, a lawyer representing another company, Reuters, made a similar argument in a recent arbitration case with the Guild.  “There are 12 full weeks out of 52 weeks in a calendar year,” the lawyer for Reuters pointed out.  “But figure it out. Seven (days in a week) times 52 (weeks in a year) equal 364 days in a year.”) 

            As we pointed out in the “Spotlight,” under the formula conveyed to the Guild, a person earning $1,000 a week would receive a check of $2,166.67 twice a month.  If the calculation were based on 52.178571 weeks in a year, which would be more accurate, the checks should amount to $2,174.11. 

            But Macri said there was no intention of throwing us a curve.  He said if we accepted the proposal, the company would pay us the 15th and the last day of each month for the actual number of days in those periods. 

            This procedure, of course, would raise an issue that some of our people might find troublesome (many of our members find twice-a-month paydays troublesome in any event).  Under the new and improved S&P proposal, it would mean that we wouldn’t get paid for the same number of days in each pay period.  There would be pay periods in which we would receive 11 days pay, 10 in others, and in some, only nine. 

            Guild negotiators have made it clear that we have no interest in going to twice-a-month paydays. 

            S & P followed the urging of the Guild’s lead negotiator, Bob Townsend, and presented the union with another proposal for switching the June-to-May vacation year to a calendar year.  (At a previous negotiating session, Townsend, our Unit’s Local Representative, had complained that he felt the Guild was negotiating with itself on the vacation issue.) 

            Throughout these negotiations, Guild bargainers have been under the impression the company hasn’t been trying to hit us over the head and gut our contract, but has been subtly attempting to massage the pact and homogenize us with the rest of McGraw-Hill, costing us a few dollars and a few cents along the way.  

            (As we saw in earlier attempts to blend us into death-in-family and tuition plans with the rest of McGraw-Hill, the company would have liked the ability to change the conditions of the plans without negotiating with the Guild.) 

            As was reported in a previous “Spotlight,” Unit Chairperson Ed Fannon attempted to show the company how its formula for shifting the vacation schedule (much like its original formula for shifting paydays) would cost employees money. When an employee now leaves the company, he or she is paid for unused vacation and for the vacation he or she has accrued for the following year.  Since the company’s proposal does away with accruing, he or she would be paid only for the portion of the vacation that is unused in the current year. 

            Addressing that issue last week, Macri said the company doesn’t “want to hurt senior people.” He suggested S&P would pay accrued vacation for people who have reached “the highest levels of seniority or retirement.”  This would apply only to current employees and, under the proposal, S & P would not pay accrued vacation to employees, who leave before reaching “the highest levels of seniority (i.e.: twenty years).” 

            In past sessions, Guild negotiators had told the company we would agree to a January-to-December vacation schedule if we continued to accrue vacation and if S&P gave us the ability to “cash out” unused vacation.  Addressing the cashing out issue last week, Macri said the company, under certain circumstances, would allow employees, who have three weeks of vacation or fewer, to cash out one week and employees, who have four or more weeks vacation, to buy back two weeks.  The circumstances that would make employees eligible, would include: 

·        An inability to take vacation because of the business needs of the company (the employee in question would have to be asked not to take vacation), 

·        A disability, or 

·        An expressed financial need on the part of an employee.  

            How would you like approaching a boss and pleading a case that you’re down and out? 

            Guild negotiators told the company we would want the ability to “cash out” two weeks of vacation without special circumstances and we would want all current employees to be paid accrued vacation when leaving the company, even if they do not reach the magic 20-year mark in service.  This is what it will take, we told the company, for us to agree to their proposed vacation schedule.  

            Joining Townsend and Fannon at the table, are Brian McGuire of Facilities and Services Management, Marilyn Bissell of Cash Systems, Peter Burke of Ratings Information Services, Leo Larkin of the Analytical Department, John Matis of Data Operations, Dorothy Madison of Subscriber Services – Circulation Fulfillment, and Caheim Murray of Mail Services.