August 26, 2005
In the last Spotlight (published August 16), we reported that the company had planned to have all of its proposals in writing at our most recent meeting, except for economics that are usually dealt with toward the end of negotiations. But Guild negotiators were disappointed when company representatives could produce only one proposal, regarding where staffers could find information on the health care plans.
At our last bargaining session, held Tuesday, August 23, the company presented the Guild with what it said was its second to last, non-economic, proposal. Its last would be a “trading policy,” for Credit Market Services. The proposal management negotiators handed over was in the form of a side letter that would be included in the contract. Its title: THIRD PARTY CONDITIONS FOR CERTAIN WORK ASSIGNMENTS. Sound ambiguous? The Guild team thought so, too. But, as we learned more about it, one thing became clear. It’s not something we want.
In essence, the side letter states that some companies who do business with Standard & Poor’s want contracted work done according to their own specifications. These “specs” might be that the employees working on a particular project undergo drug testing, background checks, and fingerprinting! As company negotiator, outside attorney Steve Macri put it, “They would want us to follow their employee handbook.”
“It’s unacceptable,” said union bargainer Steve Zavatski. “To be judged by a set of standards by some unknown company that we don’t have a contract with is a big problem for us.” Zavatski then described some of the problem issues, such as the imposition of discipline. John Gillen, Senior Director of Workforce Initiatives, attempted to dispel the Guild’s concerns regarding that issue. “The company we’re doing the work for wouldn’t be doing any discipline, we would have control of that,” he said.
But since we never bargained, or agreed to, that company’s ‘specs,” union negotiators remain uneasy.
We moved on to one of our own proposals.
The union committee proposed adding two new 401(k) funds to the choices already available to Guild employees: the S&P 400 Index Fund and the S&P 600 Index Fund. Quite simply, the lackluster returns on the presently available funds are unacceptable. We hope the company will agree to our proposal and then would see greater participation in the 401(k) programs by the staff.
Economics will undoubtedly be a huge issue in the new contract. While we are hopeful that each side can find common ground on most non-economic issues, the company said that it has one more issue not related to economics to present: a “trading policy” for Credit Market Services.
From the outset of negotiations, management has said it would be proposing a new policy for CMS, but saying what it is, and knowing what is in it, are two very different things. Company negotiator Steve Macri said he hopes to know by our next meeting, which is on September 6, when management would be able to provide us with a full written proposal regarding the policy.
# # # # #
8/26/05