ALL OVER AGAIN”

Earlier this year when we were tying up a new contract at Standard & Poor’s, a member wrote to Unit Chairperson Ed Fannon, asking: “Is there any language in the Guild contract that under normal circumstances would prohibit or limit management giving a member a discretionary raise beyond the specific increases listed in the contract?”

The answer is NO!

The problem isn’t a new one. Managers at S&P – and elsewhere – are always telling Guild-covered employees they’d like to grant raises, but are limited by the contract. Fannon responded to the member’s question, saying there’s absolutely nothing in the contract that puts a cap on wages, but we thought it would be a good idea to reprint a previous “Spotlight” that addressed the issue. It was first published on February 4, 1999 and it went something like this (in fact, it went exactly like this):

MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL AGAIN DISTORTING GUILD POSITION ON PAY

Some middle management bosses at Standard & Poor’s are at it again, telling their subordinates the untruth that the Newspaper Guild “won’t let” them give bonuses, raises, or any other form of “extra” pay to union-represented staffers.

They’re saying that the Guild has “put a cap” on what workers can be paid, and that if it were not for the union the bosses would give their staffs more money.

This is not now, nor has it ever been, the truth.

Yet S&P Guild Unit Chairperson Ed Fannon reports that several Guild members have come to him in recent weeks to tell him that their bosses have said precisely that, just as they did last year.

Alarmed by the spread of these untruthful, anti-Guild statements, Ed consulted with our Local Representative Dona Fowler (it should be noted the Local rep is now Bob Townsend) and with New York Newspaper Guild President Barry Lipton, and the three affirm this, again, for the record:

“It is not now nor has it ever been the policy or practice of this union to put a limit on money paid to the people we represent at Standard & Poor’s. And the Guild has never done it.

“S&P management is free to pay workers in Guild jurisdiction as much ‘extra’ money as it wishes, at any time, in the form of additional salary above the contractual wage rates, as bonuses, as merit raises above the contractual merit-pay schedule, or in any other form. Nothing in the Guild contract with S&P, nothing at all, prevents it.

“There is no ‘Guild cap’ of any kind on what the publisher may pay workers. Indeed, we encourage management to give additional compensation, with a liberal hand, to everyone in Guild jurisdiction today.”

Amazingly, Fannon has even been informed that some bosses have told staffers that the only way they can get more money from the company is to agree to be promoted out of Guild jurisdiction and into a management position.

This is a new myth. The truth is, that as far as the union is concerned, the company can pay workers as much as, or more than, any manager receives, and still “let them” stay in the Guild, and retain the protections and job security provided by our contract.

If management refuses to do that, it really should have the decency to admit that it’s the company’s decision, and not try to blame the union for it.

Why the untruths? A membership believing the “stories” and angry with the Guild for allegedly limiting their pay would be a membership less supportive of their union, thereby rendering it weaker at the bargaining table.

Those of you who have been with the company for two years or more will remember that the Guild, backed by a determined membership, successfully fought back the worst of management’s harmful proposals during our most recent contract negotiations (of course, it should be pointed out, we’ve had another negotiation since) won decent raises for everyone, and improved job security, among other gains. Some managers would have preferred to see us fail at those tasks. We drove up budgets and made it harder to pick and choose who could be laid off.

Remember that those promoted into exempt manager positions lose all of the protections of the Guild contract, including union-won job security.

Getting as many workers as possible out of the union, and depriving them of their job security, might very well be an effective way of getting them out of S&P, as well.

# # # # #

09/27/01