June 2, 2005

 

Negotiations: Round Three

On May 19, the Guild held its third bargaining session for a new contract with Standard & Poor’s.  The Union Negotiating Committee is comprised of Local Representative Steve Zavatski, Unit Chairperson Ed Fannon, and Joycelyn Braithwaite, Peter Burke, Randye Gilliam, Andreea Popa, and Carol Wood.  Management was represented by outside attorney Steve Macri, along with John Gillen and Meghan Doody from S&P Human Resources.

Management said at the beginning of the meeting that, because of the “convenience” of having everyone together, it wanted to bring up an issue not part of contract negotiations:  It sought the Guild’s OK on some “clarifications” related to the existing trading policy that would not, it asserted, change the obligations of employees covered by the Standard & Poor’s Investment Advisory Services code, also known as the “trading policy.”  But, in the Guild’s view, that remains to be seen.  If these changes are beyond what Guild members are required to do under the code, and/or are not mandated by governmental regulations, the company is aware, and has already agreed, that any new company-imposed rules must be negotiated with the Guild.

When the parties got back to contract issues, Macri said that the company had three written proposals to present, but the fact that S&P has not yet completed and written down all of its proposals is troubling.  The Guild is ready to address the important issues its members are concerned about and we urged management to provide us with its complete proposals as soon as possible.

The first management proposal would alter the Guild contract to include an annual salary figure, to be printed next to the weekly salary figures already used. Gillen described this proposal as a “housekeeping matter” that would, he said, make it easier for managers and employees to figure out how much annual salary was actually being paid. Macri called it “an arithmetic exercise” that would allow people to pick up the contract and not have to do the math to determine the annual figure. “There is no devious intent behind this issue,” he assured the Guild.

Zavatski asked: “What’s the purpose of this proposal? Could it be used as a salary cap?” He suggested that, if managers wanted to know what the annual salaries are, they could do the math and print out their own sheet.  Indeed, they already use such a sheet, said Gillen, who added, “I didn’t know it was going to be such a big issue. Forget it.”

Next, S&P presented a proposal regarding employee security transactions.  In the current contract, Article XXV, Section 5, requires Guild members to report their security transactions (or the lack thereof) twice a year.  Management wants to change the frequency to four times a year. Gillen said that this change would make the rules consistent for all S&P employees and allow the company to say to the SEC that these are its uniform policies.  The company is “not looking to apply this in a draconian manner,” Macri said. However, in the Guild’s view, such a change would permit the company to go beyond SEC regulations, with which it is already in compliance.  The Guild said it would review the proposal.

The Negotiating Committee discussed with S&P the company’s third proposal, which regarded emergency personal days (as mentioned in the last shop paper).  In an effort to end what it perceives as “abuse” of this benefit, the company wants to oblige workers to provide “proof” of the need to take an emergency personal day. Management would have the right to determine what qualifies as an emergency.  The Guild asked how frequently this abuse was believed to occur; Gillen said he didn’t know.