June 23, 2005

NEGOTIATIONS UPDATE

The Issues Are Taking Shape

          On June 16, the Guild, while completing its fourth round of contract talks with S&P management, rejected a company proposal that would place additional restrictions on our right to two-emergency/urgent personal days per year. The company, claiming that there are enough people abusing the benefit to cause concern, wants to have employees reveal what their personal emergency is, and that, HR would thereafter determine if the employee’s emergency would be a qualifying event. The Guild asked the obvious question, “How wide-spread is this alleged abuse?”

          We got a partial answer to that question just as we were about to publish this shop paper. Human Resources said that, last year, 110 Guild-represented workers out of a total union membership of 667, had used the emergency days. That’s 16.5% of the membership. If you take into account that a minority percentage of employees actually used the benefit, and that the company has presented no proof that any one of them used it improperly, just how serious is this alleged problem?

          It’s hard to comprehend why the company had led the Guild committee to believe there was a wide-spread issue to address.

          The union rejected another S&P proposal that would require all Guild members to report their securities transactions, or lack thereof, each quarter. We believe that, for most members, reporting every six months, the current contractual time frame, is adequate.

          Regarding a Guild proposal for improved vacation time, chief S&P negotiator, outside attorney Steve Macri, told us that the company is not interested in improving the vacation entitlement for new employees who start early in the year. He said: "In the last round of negotiations, we spent weeks on this issue and both sides got upside and downside and now the Guild is looking for additional upside. Sorry, but we're not interested in going there."

          In response to the Guild’s proposal on temporary jobs, Macri said, "We are aware that problems exist in this area and we have to educate our managers on the contract language, and then make sure that they follow it.” He explained that there are three reasons for needing temporary help: (1) to fill a spot on a short-term basis; (2) to hold a spot for a Guild member on a leave of absence (for example, maternity); and  (3) to work on a short-term project. S&P Unit Chairperson Ed Fannon pointed out that the Guild knows of one employee recently released after five-years of temping. The Guild's chief negotiator, Local Representative Steve Zavatski, asked management to provide us with a counterproposal.

          Macri also talked about a new format for performance appraisals. He said that S&P would like "all Guild members" to adopt the Performance Management Process (also known as the PMP) and gave us copies of the new PMP Guide. The PMP would replace the current employee-evaluation process.  Management attempted to put a positive spin on the idea by saying that the process has a lot of “upside” for career-minded employees. We had numerous questions, most of which revolved around "goal-setting.”  We said that we’d get back to them.

          Finally, Macri outlined what remains of their proposals, which are yet to be submitted in writing:

*telecommuting

*drug-testing (if demanded by S&P's customers for employees working on special projects--not widespread testing of Guild members)

*some changes in the existing trading policy and a new trading policy that would be for Credit Market Services

*wages and benefits

          Macri said that, because the Guild's contract with S&P is "mature," dating back some 60 years, "it only needs refinement here and there." In concluding, Macri assured the union, "There is no boogeyman in the closet that may be unleashed," and he laughed.

          We meet again on June 30.

# # # # #

06/23/05