All Over Albany

This is the kind of thinking that has gotten the US auto industry into the fine fettle it currently enjoys.

Maybe they think they can get 55% of the paper in the bankruptcy...

... said komradebob on May 27, 2009 at 4:04 PM | link

you can't have your newspaper and eat it too

... said Patr on May 27, 2009 at 5:02 PM | link

The guild sent out a press release today saying that various Albany community leaders were suspending their TU blogs as a show of support, as well (heavens, no!):

http://www.saratogian.com/articles/2009/05/27/news/doc4a1dacbdaabd3766962176.txt

... said Steve Shoe on May 27, 2009 at 5:19 PM | link

Wow. From the Land of Don't Get It. Start harassing the few remaining advertisers, too, like the TV people did. That'll show that media empire!

Do they truly have no idea what is happening to print media right now? This area simply cannot support four dead-tree-edition dailies, and there's nothing that says that the T-U is the one that is going to survive (if any do). The way things are right now, with no rebound in sight for daily print, it shouldn't take much more than this to convince stockholders and a board to simply shut an operation down. No one can go on losing money in the media any more, and there's no sign it's going to get better.

... said Carl on May 27, 2009 at 8:13 PM | link

Silly, silly unions!

Killed the airlines, killed the auto industry, now trying to kill the Times Union. Somehow they still don't realize that destroying their own companies doesn't make a lot of sense.

Silly, silly, silly.

... said Fannie on May 27, 2009 at 9:29 PM | link

Wait, they are trying to save jobs? WOW.

... said Al on May 27, 2009 at 11:08 PM | link

I've never understood why unions think it's a good idea to try to destroy the company they work for to get what they want. I guess I'm just not smart enough to be a union guy.

... said peter b on May 28, 2009 at 6:38 AM | link

It would proabably have helped if:

A. the paper wasn't a worthless rag.
B. the employees weren't so lazy and apathetic.
C. the management didn't have their head up their butts

... said dar on May 28, 2009 at 7:39 AM | link

I left Michigan 3 years ago, escaping the auto industry. Its sad to see the TU going through the same union stupidity. The guild should have a look at what happened to the Detroit Freepress employees when they went on strike. They were striking for YEARS.

Even in this day and age, cutting off your nose to spite your face, still hurts alot.

... said Jon (was) in Michigan on May 28, 2009 at 7:59 AM | link

this is a funny thread. people are expressing anger at the union for its attempts to prevent the TU's efforts to:
"seek a union contract that would allow it to outsource jobs and bypass the seniority system while making cuts."

At the same time, you people will turn around and curse companies for outsourcing jobs, laying off workers, etc. etc. (which is exactly what the TU is trying to do here). get your points of view straight and gain some perspective.

... said Kim D. on May 28, 2009 at 8:54 AM | link

This kind of action is a last resort. It's akin to a strike. A strike or boycott is meant to hurt a company (temporarily) to bring people back to the bargaining table. If a strike or boycott didn't come with some pain, then it wouldn't have any impact.
Despite the comments posted above, Albany is a union town. The state workers who read the T.U. enjoy union benefits and want their contract honored (no give-backs). They should support other workers in the area who also want their contract upheld.

... said Union Maid on May 28, 2009 at 9:05 AM | link

Hell hath no fury like a short-sighted, arrogant union scorned.

... said Kim on May 28, 2009 at 9:50 AM | link

And instead of the 20 or so newsroom jobs to be cut, the TU will go the way of too many others, and shut down completely. Be seriously union folks! This is a terrible idea! Byline strikes, protests, that is fine. But hitting their bottom line, while that will hurt them, I don't know that its something any newspaper can come back from right now.

... said Mel on May 28, 2009 at 9:57 AM | link

I remember a few years ago a billboard on Route 7 in Schenectady urged us to "Turn Off CBS 6". I'm still waiting for the billboard to alert me when I can start watching again.

... said Rudy on May 28, 2009 at 10:09 AM | link

This is hilarious. Think about it for a second before you dump these steaming turds you call "comments" on the unions. You really think a union should agree to a contract that's going to pack up its member's jobs and strip their benefits? The goal of the union is to protect the members, if you can't see now they're doing that in this situation, you need to read more about what's happening here. Or, just continue with "hurr unions r dum hurrdurr lol".

... said B on May 28, 2009 at 10:20 AM | link

This was a not a step taken lightly by the union. www.cancelthetu.com has come out nearly a year of the company trying to force the same union-busting proposal down the employees' throats. Last month, the Times Union took the unprecedented step of CANCELING the union contract with its employees. That means that the terms of the last contract are still in place, but the paper now essentially has an open shop, the company will no longer collect our dues for the union members and they no longer have the ability to file grievances. This has NEVER happened before, in the 75 years that the union has been in place there.

Since the beginning of negotiations, the company has refused to back off demands to lay off employees without regard to seniority and to outsource all positions to other parts of the country. Which would mean that the union would be utterly powerless and everyone would essentially become "at will" employees. Is that the way to treat reporters, editors, circulation managers and ad reps who have given decades of service to the paper? Do you think they've canceled the contract and are talking about an impasse just in case? Hell no, they've got a plan.

The Times Union has already moved its servers to Houston, created shared content agreements with other papers and are trying to get as much community submitted content as possible- all to lessen the necessity of actual employees doing skilled journalism. Hundreds of local jobs, the survival of the union and the quality of local news are all at stake.

Yes, the newspaper industry is in a crisis. But the Times Union is not. There was a story in the paper last month stating that the Times Union is one of only a few in the country that continues to gain in circulation. Do you think that's because of rich boy George Hearst? No, it's because of the great work of the union members who give their blood, sweat and tears to that enterprise every day. Yet the company is using the economy as an excuse to make themselves richer and the workers poorer.

www.cancelthetu.com isn't just about saving TU workers's jobs, it's about the future of news and democracy in the Capital Region. Where are you going to get your news, folks, when there are only a smattering of local reporters and most of the content is the same in all Hearst papers, like a US Today? I love you AOA, but you don't have the resources yet. I hope you do soon. Because mainstream media is quickly heading to the land of a Wal-mart of news.

... said Workers Create All Wealth! on May 28, 2009 at 10:35 AM | link

>You really think a union should agree to a contract that's going to pack up its member's jobs and strip their benefits?

ok, thank you B for actually taking a second to THINK about this and concur with my earlier statements. companies dont give a shit about workers, companies HURT workers (i.e. outsourcing, benefit cuts, etc.) and unions were formed to protect workers and their rights. do a little reading about the coal mining industry - or how unions were formed in this country and the people's suffering that went into their organization - and maybe you'll gain a better understanding.

... said Kim D. on May 28, 2009 at 10:50 AM | link

Funny to see this country so unfamiliar with unions. You can tell unions don't know quite to do (I can't blame them), and you can also tell how these methods are misunderstood by so many people. On the other side of the Atlantic, it is pretty common for a union to use the company and its assets as "collaterals". It's fair leverage. A few months ago in Frenchland, a union blocked a major left-wing newspaper at the printer to protest against *one* layoff. Tires are burnt pretty routinely, offices "destroyed", computers flying. Almost every year a union holds its CEO "hostage" for a day or two, "peacefully". All of this usually happens when the situation is dead-locked and unions can't find a way to bring the company management to the table.

Cultural differences. My feeling is that while you guys are much better than we are at organizing yourself to "sue" a company (we *suck* at class actions), there is still something blasphemous about messing with a company as a physical entity, threatening its brick and mortar assets.

... said -S on May 28, 2009 at 11:05 AM | link

@B:

I don't think anybody's just "dumping steaming turds" saying that "hurr unions r dum". I think people are shocked that the union, in attempts to ostensibly save jobs, is actively campaigning to hurt its own employer.

I dislike unions -- had to be in one for four years -- but not everything they do is "dum." Trying to financially harm the company from which your paycheck comes? That's "dum."

... said Fannie on May 28, 2009 at 11:08 AM | link

@Workers Create All Wealth: "[...] The Times Union has already moved its servers to Houston, created shared content agreements with other papers and are trying to get as much community submitted content as possible- all to lessen the necessity of actual employees doing skilled journalism.[...]". Ha. Good point. I've noticed that with the TU; more and more "popular" blogs, less investigating on serious local issues? *sigh*. Is Metroland going that route too?

... said -S on May 28, 2009 at 11:29 AM | link

Just cancelled my subscription to the TU. I have no problem with supporting the union in this situation. And I will also have no problem re-subscribing to the TU when it begins behaving like an ethical and responsible company again, by giving it's support to the people that have put their time in to make it what it is. Fact of the matter is the TU may be a sinking ship, but that doesn't mean the captain should try to get all the treasure he can off that ship while it goes down, and leave his crew to perish.

Also @Fannie: They are trying to financially hurt the company to prove a point about the value of the workers that the company is taking for granted. Most workers paychecks are small in comparison to what the heads of companies make from riding the talent of it's employees to the bank.

... said Chester on May 28, 2009 at 11:50 AM | link

@Chester:

Issues of wage disparity aside, this is a counter-productive way to "prove a point." Trying to make the economic situation even worse for the company that signs your paychecks -- in order to "prove a point" -- is, simply stated, ridiculous.

... said Fannie on May 28, 2009 at 12:19 PM | link

Maybe the unions should have worked sooner and harder with the newspapers to get up to speed with the changing media environment and work on a way to make it profitable.

Now they are loosing customers (and even telling them to get their news elsewhere) who are just going to go online to read the news. I’m sorry, but too many of the old guard of writers and readers (even a chief editorial writer at the TU told me he at fault for this) seem to have been too thickle and stubborn to see the change coming and accept the future.

... said MattW on May 28, 2009 at 12:20 PM | link

Trying to financially harm the company from which your paycheck comes? That's "dum."

Thanks for proving my point. Does anyone here know what a strike is? How is a strike not designed to financially hard the company from which one's paycheck comes? Just start thinking for a few moments and it will all make sense.

As for those who dislike unions in toto, read Sinclair's The Jungle (well, excluding the socialist ranting in the second half) to see how far we've come.

... said B on May 28, 2009 at 1:46 PM | link

>>>Trying to make the economic situation even worse for the company that signs your paychecks -- in order to "prove a point" -- is, simply stated, ridiculous.

haha, that statement makes me sick. it shows just how clueless and removed from reality the american citizen has become. hurting the company you work for economically (there is no other way) is the very foundation of workers' rights, unions, etc. if you don't understand that basic principal, no conversation can even take place here.

people today haven't had to live through it, and society seems to have forgotten the time before workers' rights laws and unions existed. be thankful that people before you fought and risked and lost their jobs and struggled to feed their families to "prove that point." countless people lost their jobs and even their lives to prove that point. the fact that you enjoy the privileges that were gained through their struggle without acknowledgment or appreciation (or in this case, support) is despicable.

Upton Sinclair, John Steinbeck, yes, but you don't even need to go back that far. Ever hear of Harlan County? Maybe you should try coming down from your glass castle and take a look at what can and does really happen to people, and don't think for a second that it wouldn't happen to you if the institutions we have today weren't in place.

... said Kim D. on May 28, 2009 at 3:09 PM | link

The TU employees are protesting the outsourcing their jobs? Is that incorrect?

... said MattW on May 28, 2009 at 3:46 PM | link

OK I just want to say that if somebody is going to shiv Kim D. tonight, keep in mind she is driving a few of us to the party. I mean. As long as you are willing to drive me back, it's all good. Thank you.

... said -S on May 28, 2009 at 4:00 PM | link

Grew up in the south where unions were few and far between. Never worked for a company or institution where unions were ever considered necessary. Never felt exploited by any company I ever worked for (and I have worked for many). Have always felt that my work was rewarded fairly and success of the company directly resulted in improved conditions for employees.

I do understand the history for why unions came about. I believe unions played an important role in making the workplaces safer, working conditions humane, pay scales more equitable, and more. But... yes, there is a 'but' ... seems all too clear to me that today's unions are just another 'big business' with all the same problems we complain about in 'big business.' Let's face it, the unions are there to make money for the unions. Their 'business' is a service to the members, but in the end they have developed the same bureaucratic structure and the same 'brick and mortar' infrastructure that characterized the the businesses they once fought. As an example, I am always amazed while driving down Route 7 past the teachers union building. Just how many employees does it take to run a union, anyway? What is the 'value' of the work done in that huge building?

We learn from history. But we also live in a very different world today. Use history to understand where we came from, but not as a blueprint for what is right tomorrow.

... said Bob F. on May 28, 2009 at 9:52 PM | link

Folks: My name is Tim O'Brien, and I'm the president of the Albany Newspaper Guild. I can assure you, we are the furthest thing from a big business. We're a small local union with one part-time employee.

And folks should know we've offered all kinds of concessions. To prevent layoffs, we offered a 5 percent pay cut, a week's furlough, giving up sick-day bonuses and other givebacks. The TU said it would prefer to lay people off.

We proposed to allow the Company some flexibility on layoffs, with the ability to skip 10 percent. (If 60 are laid off, they can skip six.) We thought that was a starting point. The TU's response? No, we want to lay off anyone no matter how long they've served. If you're laid off before you turn 55, that could mean a whopping 50 percent cut in your pension.

We also offered flexibility on outsourcing, enabling the Company to outsource six percent of jobs (13 positions this year under our current membership totals.) The TU's response? We want to be able to outsource any and all jobs.

We've been fair. We've been reasonable. We've offered concessions. Of course, we hate the idea of people boycotting the paper. The way we're doing it with the Web site enables us to compile a list of all the people who cancel so that when we reach an agreement, we can let those folks know. (And we have not yet handed in a single name.) In the past, we've worked to promote subscribing to the TU and we will do so again when we have a contract in hand.

No one is suffering from the delusion it's going to be a great deal. We know the economy is bad and the newspaper industry is suffering. But Publisher George Hearst has said the paper is still profitable (which we want it to be) and he has refused to show us the books to demonstrate that the paper is suffering. (That happened at the Hearst paper in San Francisco and the union would sign an agreement not to make public its findings.)

We believe that turning the paper into a bland product full of stories produced elsewhere would do long-term harm to the Times Union. They've put in a computer system based in Houston. Nobody there is going to buy anything from the TU's advertisers.

... said Tim O'Brien on May 28, 2009 at 11:40 PM | link

@Tim Thank you for your response. I know nothing about unions or their organization and tactics (although I'm interested to learn more now) so I chose not to comment on the situation. However, I think you provided a clear and concise explanation of your intentions and I appreciate that. I wish you all the best of luck in solving this issue.

... said Emma on May 29, 2009 at 5:36 AM | link

Tim,

You only spoke to what concessions the guild had proposed and how bland the paper would be with the outsourcing.
Could you please speak to what the guild is proposing to help make newspaper a better bussiness model while not being bland?

Personally, I have no union job security and because of that I strive to make sure my skills are vaulable to the company that pays my bills. If that means I need to reinvent myself etc., I choose this route.

... said MattW on May 29, 2009 at 8:58 AM | link

@Tim Thanks for the detailed discussion of your issues with TU and Hearst Papers. I appreciate that the Albany Newspaper Guild is "small" but from your website I find that you are actually part of the Communication Workers of America and they in turn appear to be affiliated with the AFL-CIO. This is, by my reckoning, not just a 'big business' but in fact a "HUGE" business.

I suppose the question becomes in today's world, "does the union still truly represent the BEST interests of the workers, or is their primary objective to perpetuate their own growth?" Like I said in my earlier comment, I am really "union ignorant" but have a gut feeling that the "worker versus management" mentality that drove the need for unions becomes a self fulfilling direction. Marx and other economic philosophers described this dichotomy for the industrial age of the late 19th and early 20th century...and I am not so naive as to think that it does not still live on in some employer/employee relations to this day. But my point is that all things change. The impact of unions for the past 100+ years has fundamentally changed the dynamics of business. Solutions for today's problems are not necessarily found in the institutions that solved yesterday's problems.

And the real problem for newpapers today is that they are dying. I have not purchased a newspaper for more than 3 years; while I used to subscribe to both the TU and the Gazette. What is the need for me, as a consumer, to have a pile of "dead trees" (as someone else called it above) that I have no time to read, that seldom provided me with news relevant to my life, and that sold me crap I didn't want in the first place? THAT is the real issue that faces not only Hearst Papers but also the Albany Newspaper Guild. And I think this is the crux of why many folks here find the idea of boycotting to be self defeating for your cause. Maybe you know more than I do - well, you definitely know more than I do - about the 'bottom line' at the TU, but my guess is they are probably bleeding cash to get the paper out the door each day. It sounds like you are trying to be cooperative, and for that, I commend your Guild; but if bleeding turns to hemorrhaging, the doors at the TU will soon be closed forever.

I think MattW has made a valid point. I find myself wondering what the Guild is doing to help its members compete in this new world. Do the operators of the presses receive any assistance in "reinventing" themselves for a non-press world?

... said Bob F. on May 29, 2009 at 10:13 AM | link

I don't particularly care who you are, employer, employee, vendor,customer, partner, spouse, the day you resort to trying to hold me hostage instead of negotiating in good faith is the day I start figuring out how to dissolve the relationship.

... said sergi on May 29, 2009 at 11:57 AM | link

Well, I guess I may be a growing group of people that see their job as a Privilege and not a right. I don’t deserve anything "relationship" love unless I “put out” good work that makes my company stay a float.
Call it a hostage situation if you like, at least their not pirates; they'll just take your money.

And really I don't understand your phrase "hostage". How are people being held hostage? They can quit anytime they want. In fact, thats what the TU wants.

... said MattW on May 29, 2009 at 1:00 PM | link

You're right Matt, they can quit any time they want and lose their home, their car, and not be able to afford food. Just like a hostage who is told "if you open that door, I'll shoot you in the head" can open that door any time they want.

... said B on May 29, 2009 at 2:12 PM | link

Re MattW & B:

If you think that your services are worth more than what you're being offered at your current employer, then quit and find another employer who will offer better salary, benefits, and security. If you find that no other employer will offer said salary, benefits, and security, then it is likely that your expectations are not in line with reality.

... said Fannie on May 29, 2009 at 2:29 PM | link

The hostage situation is not just one of the union trying to hold the employer hostage in the 'Give us what we want or we'll put you out of business' sense but can also be one of an employer saying 'Your job is moving to Kansas. You can move or quit.' It is a two way street.

I, once a starving unemployed student, was offered a job in which I would have been forced to pay dues to an organization I believed would bring me no benefit. But belonging was a requirement to getting the job.

I passed on the job.

My point was an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. There are no winners in these situations, especially when the sledding is already difficult.

But I fear we have moved well beyond the discussion relevant to the TU and into general politics.

... said sergi on May 29, 2009 at 2:55 PM | link

@Fannie

Exactly. Similarly, if as an employer, think I can get equal or better workers for less salary, benefits and security, I should try to hire them. If I cannot find employees who will work for less salary, benefits and security, then it is likely that my expectations are not in line with reality.

... said komradebob on May 29, 2009 at 2:58 PM | link

I'm shocked. It boggles the mind that people can be presented with facts and still cling to some truly bizarre and ignorant notions.

For example, the seniority issue. Tim partially explained this. The truth is that Hearst does not want to stick to the agreed upon firing by seniority because there are people who are two or three years away from retirement who, if Hearst fires them now, will only have to be paid pennies on the dollar for their pensions. But I suppose, as has been suggested, these workers who have put in decades of service under a contract do have the option of walking away for employment somewhere else and... lose those pensions anyway. Sounds like a win-win, oh wait, no, I mean it sounds like exactly the opposite.

This is about doing what's right. Ethics (should) still exist in the world of business. If you, komradebob, Fannie, Carl, Al, peter b, Mel, an d anyone else I forgot, think that what Hearst is doing is morally and ethically right, well, I'm glad I don't live in your house.

Listen, unions don't always do what's right. I'm a proud union member and I'm currently pretty pissed at things my union is doing. But let's drop the knee-jerk reactions, the "we don't need unions anymore" blinders attitude, the rosy "invisible hand" capitalistic idealism. These are real people we are talking about, people with lives and families which will be devastatingly crushed if Hearst has their way. This is what the union is fighting for. And to get back to the original topic: if you still think the tactic in question is stupid, look at all the discussion it sparked just here, on one blog.

... said B on May 29, 2009 at 3:43 PM | link

This is just a thought that I want to put out there...is the TU worth saving? I understand there are jobs at stake and people's lives but as a general question, would you mind seeing the TU go away?

... said Emma on May 29, 2009 at 3:47 PM | link

Yeah I'm shocked too. @Emma Really?! Is there any situation where jobs and people's lives is not worth saving? Do you want to save trees or space in your mailbox *that* bad? We are not talking Enron or Madoff douchebaggery here. Would you like, here and now, to be put in a situation where you have to find a new job, in this economy, while having to pay your bills, feed your family, etc.

... said -S on May 29, 2009 at 4:13 PM | link

@S I guess I should have put that differently. I don't want to see the TU fold and everyone lose their jobs...I worked there for a summer and I know people who still work there and I would hate for that to happen to them. I guess it was more of a media question...as in do you really find the TU, as a paper, to be something you want to read? I've noticed that a lot of the TU content comes from blogs and community authors lately (which I understand is part of the whole issue). I also find that the TU has become less news and more "fluff."

My question was in no way meant to imply that I would want the TU to fold, although rereading it, it obviously did. My apologies for that...it's been an extremely long week. I'm just curious as to what the thoughts are regarding content.

... said Emma on May 29, 2009 at 5:30 PM | link

@B,

I don't think either party has the moral high ground here.

Screwing long term employees is bad and shortsighted. Who wants to work for you when you are known for doing that?

Inflicting financial harm on your employer directly impacts their ability to pay you. Who wants to hire someone who would do that? Also bad and shortsighted.

We are watching a struggle in an industry that is fighting for it's very survival. The publisher/union battle reminds me most of two drowning swimmers trying to climb on each others shoulders to survive. Ultimately both will drown. Were they to cooperate better, they would have a better chance of surviving methinks.

Rosebud!

... said komradebob on May 29, 2009 at 5:52 PM | link

Well said komrade. Look what the unions are doing with GM now. Not a happy situation for anyone, but it appears that there is a level of cooperation that offers some hope for the future of the company and at least some of the jobs. And it definitely takes BOTH sides working together to reach any sort of agreement.

... said Bob F. on May 29, 2009 at 8:40 PM | link

We've tried very hard to cooperate and to offer alternatives. If you'd asked me even two years ago if I'd be making proposals to allow some outsourcing and some layoffs outside seniority, I'd have thought you were crazy.

As for keeping our skills up to date, I give the TU credit here. When I arrived, the Internet didn't exist. Now we have a terrific Web site, our folks film video for the Web and we are now using Twitter etc. We do keep up with emerging technology, and we've never fought that. In fact, our union was the first in the nation to reach an agreement on off-hours blogging, waiving the rules about having to be paid a minimum number of hours for returning to work. Instead people are paid straight overtime for the minutes they post. We recognized that people aren't driving back to work to put up a blog post.

We approached the company about that because we recognized our members were not about to put in for several hours of overtime for a simple blog post.

We are forward-thinking. We just want to continue to have a voice in these discussions.

... said Tim O'Brien on May 30, 2009 at 11:36 AM | link

Hello. I'm a Guild steward and a member of the union's bargaining committee. I don't want boycotts. All I want is a contract that hasn't been completely gutted.

We have tried very hard to accommodate the company's need for savings. We had offered nearly $1 million in pay cuts and unpaid "vacations" in the hope of saving a least a few jobs. We were told it wasn't enough. Gee, you'd think $1 million would have spared 3 or 4 jobs with money left over to send to HQ.

We offered to take a lump sum payment in lieu of a raise this year. The company jumped on it. So under Its latest proposal the employees would get a $500 bonus when the contract is signed and another on Aug. 1, 2010.

We agreed to a change in health insurance at the end of last year, taking on a huge increase in our share of the cost (a high deductible) and now we're facing a company demand that we accept sharp increases in our share of the premiums (which will pretty much obliterate those "bonuses" mentioned above).

If you critics think the newspaper is bad now, just wait. Plans for slashing professional jobs and handing the work over to freelancers and outsource businesses is no way to save it. All it will do is begin the death knell of a newspaper that in one form or another has served this area for more than 150 years.

Frankly, it's just sad.

... said Mary on May 30, 2009 at 3:07 PM | link

DON'T CANCEL THE TU!

Why?

Because I canceled it back in November and I get phone calls at least once a month from workers in PA or NJ urging me to sign back up for a lower monthly rate, even though I keep telling them not to call back.

... said Ryan on May 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM | link

Wow. Judgmental much? Beyond all the anti-union, pro-union rhetoric, I'd like to know exactly what suggestions you all have for what actions the TU employees (forget for a second that they are - heaven forbid! - union members) SHOULD take to, what's it now, save their jobs, salaries, pensions, etc. You're all very good about condemning or praising each party but not so good about telling a slingshot-less David how to fight an uncaring, unyielding Goliath.

... said Less Holy Than Thou on May 31, 2009 at 12:59 AM | link

I don't think this is going to be solved by comments on a blog. And I think this topic surely got that little person who likes to take pictures of walls and shoes a little angry!

... said CommonSense on May 31, 2009 at 1:03 PM | link

Less Holy hits it right on the head. I guess some of the posters would recommend the union just say "ok, send our jobs to Texas and India." The jobs that are at stake here are the kind that support the jobs of those complaining here. How much money do people in Texas and India spend in the Capital District?

If these jobs are sent away, perhaps your employers will come after your job next and outsource it. But I guess you would just roll over and take it, huh?

... said Working stiff on May 31, 2009 at 3:05 PM | link

Hey Union Members. I have two letters for you. GM. The good company that gave you and your family what you have today and you want to hurt the bottom line. Are you people crazy. The company is only a company if it can make a profit. No profit, no company, no job. If you think it is that bad there, then quit. I will gladly take your good paying job with benifits. Lets switch places and see what you think of the Times Union then! The door locks on the inside to keep people from getting in so if it is that bad, you owe it to yourself to get out. Stop complaining, just leave for the better jobs that are out there.........or are you afraid?

... said Jeff on Jun 1, 2009 at 8:05 AM | link

Make no mistake about it, The Times Union has already cut jobs, very quietly, earlier this year. These were a "handful" of low overhead, high value people working up to 30 hours with no benefits, being part-timers. This was either the Times Union management saying "see what we can do" or it was the newspaper union making an early concession. The point is, jobs have already been lost and these people have suffered. If they won't budge on the contract, then I'd at least hope they'd be merciful and humane by letting us know if we are on their list of jobs they will inevitably cut.

... said A. Union Member on Jun 1, 2009 at 9:04 AM | link

newspapers are dying....the guild is dying....2 people in a hospice having a fight.....first the music business,,,,now publishing...soon the movies...The is no way for a writer or a musician to make a living.....those days are over

... said joe solo on Jun 1, 2009 at 9:56 AM | link

I have cancelled the TU 3 times this month and it still appears in my mailbox.

No one is cancelling anything!

... I tried ...

... said Donna Tschetter on Jun 1, 2009 at 7:53 PM | link

I have also cancelled the Times Union because it is not readable. Too many blurred pages and small print. Sometimes it goes right to recycle bin. A couple good writers, but for the most part, just ads.

... said Sue Martin on Jun 2, 2009 at 8:03 PM | link

The union's been fighting these folks for how long now? Years? And the paper has been completely stubborn, trying to gut the union.

So now they're making a final, last-ditch effort to prevent the TU from destroying both the paper and the union. This is an escalation. Yes, it's dramatic, but the paper has pushed it to that. Those who are talking like this is completely unprecedented or inappropriate aren't looking at the history.

... said Matt on Jun 3, 2009 at 10:57 AM | link

The biggest problems with newspapers and their websites these days is the general public is too stupid to appreciate them.

... said Al T. on Jun 4, 2009 at 1:39 PM | link

I work for one of the other Unions with in the Times Union. It's awful great that Tim O'brien is heading up this Cancel the TU. #1 - customers will not get refund of there money already paid for subscription. #2 - When people do cancel, IT IS HURTING the other union woroers as well as the union workers Tim O'brien is trying to save. So tell me how mch is cancelling your TU subscription hurting the TU. It's not - It's hurting your fellow union workers trying to survive in this tough economy. I'd boot Tim O'brien out on his butt. He's stabbing his fellow union employees in the back. Oh yeah if you go on strike - you get the crappy pay from your union. Not the decent paycheck your used to living off of now. Tim O'brien should have taken the same offer that George Hearst offered every other union within the Times Union.

... said M on Jun 10, 2009 at 4:00 PM | link

Maybe if it was the same offer, we would have. It's far from the same offer and you know that. Stop trying to muddy the waters and distort the facts.

... said Less Holy Than Thou on Jun 14, 2009 at 10:14 PM | link

Apparently the M stands for Misinformation.

No other union at the TU has accepted language that would enable the newspaper to outsource any and all of its jobs. No other union at the TU has accepted language that would lay off anyone no matter how long and loyally they have served.

None.

... said Tim O'Brien on Jun 15, 2009 at 11:24 AM | link