December 21, 2005

 

Mountains Not Moved,

But Progress Is Made

 

Guild and Standard & Poor’s negotiators spent Sunday and Monday attempting to narrow the gap between what the company is demanding in a new performance review system and a trading policy.

 

The focus of Sunday’s session was on what S&P calls its Performance Management Process (PMP), with Steve Macri, an attorney from the firm of Putney, Twombley, Hall & Hirson, its chief spokesperson, firmly stating: “There has to be goals and competencies” in the system that is eventually bargained.

 

N.Y. Guild President Barry Lipton, leading the talks for the union, responded just as firmly: “If we find certain goals or competencies are unacceptable . . . we’re not just going to eat (a proposal).”

 

Example: One of the company’s proposed competencies reads: “Cultivating long-term, strategic customer relationships by ensuring that the customer’s perspective is the driving force behind business activities; anticipate customer needs and understand the customer’s criteria for success; strive to exceed customer expectations; measure contributions against the criteria to determine whether success was achieved; accept responsibility for outcomes.”

 

At the end of the day, even management negotiators appeared to agree that not all of the competencies being sought by management seemed to apply to all of the Guild-represented jobs in our contract and that avenues would have to be explored to deal with that fact.

 

While progress on the PMP Sunday appeared minimal, advances regarding the Trading Policy late in the day Monday were a little more substantive.

 

It didn’t start out that way. When the Guild opened the session by handing management negotiators a rewrite of the trading policy S&P had proposed, the company acted appalled. Macri sarcastically said that the Guild had made the issue “very uncomplicated” because authors of the trading policy at McGraw-Hill (owner of S&P) would look at the rewrite “and they’re just going to say no.”

 

When Lipton insisted there were elements in the S&P proposal that would present “a horrible hardship” to our members, Macri asked us to point out the elements, maybe something could be done about them.

 

After a caucus, the Guild told management there were four major areas of concern:

 

·                    We wanted to know just whom in our bargaining unit the trading policy would apply to.

·                    We told the company we were particularly concerned about the requirement that a stock must be held for 60 days after being purchased before it can be sold, unless it is sold at a loss.

·                    We told the company we were concerned about the requirement that an employee must get clearance before purchasing a stock.

·                    We were also concerned about the definition of “immediate family” in the trading policy.

 

The Guild insisted, and the company agreed, that any discipline meted out as the result of an alleged violation of the Trading Policy would be subject to the grievance and arbitration procedure in the contract.

 

So, while the Guild and S&P didn’t move mountains on Sunday and Monday, some progress on contentious issues was made.

 

Macri thought so anyway.

 

“I’m very appreciative of the positive progress we were able to make today,” he said at the end of Monday’s session. “I think it was an important step forward.”

 

The Guild offered S&P two dates for next week and we are waiting for a response.

 

Local Representative Steve Zavatski, who had been assigned to service S&P, has left the Guild.  Bob Townsend, who formerly serviced the S&P Guild unit, is replacing him, at least on a temporary basis.

 

Townsend took the opportunity at negotiations to question management about reports of a survey that was sent to Guild-represented analysts and included at least one question regarding the Guild.

 

Company negotiators didn’t know about the survey initially. But Townsend received an email Tuesday, explaining that one went out to employees of Equity Research, which included the following question:

 

Which of the following statements do you agree with most?

 

a.     Being part of the Guild/Union provides me with a sense of security/comfort

b.     I have no concern or issue with being part of the Guild/Union

c.     Because I am part of the Guild/Union, I feel my potential growth at S&P is limited

d.     I am not part of the Guild/Union

 

Aside from being a potential Unfair Labor Practice, the question was inappropriate, callus and none of the manager’s business.

 

Townsend would like to survey the manager.

 

Which of the following statements do you agree with the most?

 

a. When I wrote the “Guild/Union question on the survey, I was attempting to intimidate my employees.

 

  ######

12/21/05