September 20, 2005

A Squeaky Clean Image For the Company, But at What Cost to the Employees?

On Sept. 15, the Guild and S&P inched closer to a new agreement when the company presented to the union its written proposal concerning the Credit Market Services Trading Policy (or Ratings Trading Policy) and management’s suggested revisions to the health care plans.

The CMS trading policy would affect all CMS employees and their immediate family members who buy, sell, or hold publicly traded securities. And if you don’t trade, you would have to report that, too.  S&P wants to project a “squeaky-clean” image to the investment community showing that all of its employees are ethical and honest. The Guild bargaining committee has already begun to examine the proposal.

The company told us that it is similar in nature to the SPIAS (Standard & Poor’s Investment Advisory Services LLC) trading policy now in effect for certain employees in IS (Investment Services).  However, upon our initial inspection of the document, it is clear that S&P wants to go far above and beyond what the law requires, in their proposed policy.

 First, the company wants pre-clearance on all buy-and-sell orders for CMS employees and all other members of their household (i.e., immediate family, which includes spouse, domestic partner, minor child, parents, sibling, grandparent, etc.). In other words, anyone who lives under your roof and with whom you possibly share a beneficial interest in traded securities would be subject to this policy. Second, if the stock or security goes up (now get this), management wants you to hold it for at least 60 days before you sell it! Losses, of course, can be sold at any time. Any violations of that scheme could subject you to discipline. When asked why a stock or security must be held for at least 60 days, outside attorney Steve Macri, representing S&P at the bargaining table, said, “We want to discourage day-trading.”

Subjecting potential investors to a pre-defined time frame governing when they can sell a security limits their ability to profit. We asked management to give us a list of employees and positions that would be covered by this policy.

Healthcare & Other Benefits: Missing Parts

In the afternoon session, management gave the Guild a chart of its proposed premium changes in the POS plan and in its HMO for 2006. In essence, the chart shows 6% to 17% increases in the HMO & HMO/POS premiums. However, in the salary band $35,000 to $54,999, workers would receive a 6% to 10% decrease in their premiums. So it’s a bit of a mixed bag. Human Resources’ John Gillen told the Guild that there would be no other major changes regarding the company’s health care plans for 2006.

In regard to our approximately 41 members who are still covered by S&P’s Indemnity Plan, the company wants the employee contribution to mirror the contributions paid by employees who have opted to go with the POS plan. In other words, if an employee pays 20% of the cost of the POS plan, the company wants the participants in the S&P Indemnity Plan to pay the same percentage toward their coverage. Currently, members in the S&P plan contribute $12.25 or $30.50 per week for single or family coverage, respectively.  No new figures were discussed, mainly because the company had none to offer. At this point, Guild negotiators demanded descriptions of any and all changes, which include the premiums, deductibles, and the out-of-pocket maximum, as well as any in plan design.

 The union was very disappointed that the company came to the meeting unprepared to disclose essential information on other costs that may be borne by our members. Company representatives were also not prepared to provide answers to questions involving changes in the vision and dental plans and physician and pharmaceutical co-pays.  The Guild needs to know what the costs are, to be able to make a counterproposal.

Local representative Steve Zavatski, who is leading the talks for the union, made it clear to management that the Guild will be unable to negotiate any further until we have the information we requested.

 

09/20/05

######