51: December 2006

Guild settles TVA grievance
Guild member sought to serve on cafeteria panel
Agreement reached on MKE managers’ bargaining-unit work
Column: Company’s lack of commitment shows

Guild settles TVA grievance

Vacation accounts and pensions. Sounds a bit dry, doesn’t it, as if we’re preparing for a 10th-grade math test.

But both topics have been the subject of recent grievances, and they affect us now — in the case of vacations — and in the future — in the case of pensions.

The Guild recently settled one of those grievances — the one involving use of Transitional Vacation Accounts.

Those extra vacation banks were established in the current contract as part of the company’s effort to switch employees hired after the merger into an “earn-as-you-go” vacation system.

The vacation accounts were set up to compensate those employees because they no longer would begin the year with a full year’s worth of vacation. This would result in less money in payout for unused vacation when they left the company.

What we found was that some employees who left in 2006 had days deducted from their Transitional Vacation Accounts when they left the company. This was the company’s way to have them pay back if they had used more vacation than the company determined they had earned at that point in the year.

The Guild had not expected this would be the procedure with the vacation accounts, which is why the grievance was filed.

What we gained in the settlement is a promise from the company that it no longer will deduct Transitional Vacation Account days from vacation payouts when someone leaves.

A second part of the settlement will have part-timers who had been under the earn-as-you-go system reverting to the old system of earning vacation. For instance, they will take vacation in 2007 that was earned in 2006.

The good news: Part-timers affected by this revert to the old system and also keep their Transitional Vacation Accounts.

The grievance involving pensions relates to the pension changes we learned about this year when the company announced it was establishing an Annual Employer Contribution plan. Many had the choice of staying in the old pension plan or switching to the new one. No problem with that — choices are fine.

But employees hired after May 1, as well as non-vested part-timers, of whom there are a number in the newsroom, were not given a choice. They had to go into the new plan.

The Guild’s grievance centers on the idea that the pension is a contract matter, and changes in it should be negotiated. Also, we feel all employees should be given the choice.

The grievance was denied, and the Guild has filed for arbitration. Talks continue.

Guild member sought to serve on cafeteria panel

A joint Guild and management committee on cafeteria operations has started compiling results of an e-mail survey sent to all downtown employees. The committee already has targeted issues including eliminating trans fats, posting nutritional information, holding down prices and improving vending machine selection. Guild committee representatives are Amy Rinard and Jan Uebelherr. Management is represented by Becky Lang, Garry D. Howard and Ed Brud. The committee is looking for one more Guild member to join; if you’re interested, please contact Rinard.

Agreement reached on MKE managers’ bargaining-unit work

The Milwaukee Newspaper Guild and Journal Sentinel management have reached an agreement on new rules for bargaining-unit work by MKE managers.

Two of the youth-oriented weekly’s three managers will operate under the same rules as managers in the main newsroom, leaving only the MKE managing editor with an exemption that allows him to perform bargaining-unit work through the end of the contract in 2008.

Because MKE was a new operation, the Guild had agreed not to file any grievances over bargaining-unit work by any of that publication’s managers through late October. After the company requested an extension of this temporary exemption, negotiators for both sides worked out a compromise. Both the original deal and the new agreement are similar to arrangements negotiated for JS Online in its earlier years.

Company's lack of commitment shows

com·mit ·ment / kuh-mit-muh nt - noun / 1. a pledge or a promise; obligation; 2. engagement; involvement I’ve been thinking a great deal about commitment — making a pledge and a promise, and committing oneself to one’s work. There have been some recent, stunning examples of Journal Sentinel employees showing extraordinary commitment to their work.

Jennie Tunkieicz

There also has been a recent, stunning and disappointing example of Journal Communications showing its failure to demonstrate its commitment to employees.

We saw a great commitment to getting and owning the story during the Falk explosion and the snowstorm coverage.

Some reporters and photographers went immediately from their homes to the Falk scene or as close as they could get to the explosion. Graphics, online, editorial assistants — everyone in all departments worked extra hard, extra long that day.

During the snowstorm, reporters drove around looking for people to talk to about the impact of the snowstorm. It was hazardous duty, to be sure, but people were committed to doing the job well.

People generally think that if they show commitment and do their jobs well, their company will, in turn, show them commitment with wages and benefits, for example.

Many newsroom employees have provided 10-, 20- and 30-plus years of their lives to this company. They did their part by doing their jobs well, showing their commitment.

But the company recently showed a lack of commitment to its employees by announcing radical changes in medical coverage for pre-age 65 and post-age 65 retirees.

Just before Thanksgiving, Journal Communications informed employees that it is withdrawing a longtime commitment to longtime employees.

n Retiree medical coverage for employees under age 50 is being withdrawn. So you can work here 40 years, but let’s hope you’re healthy when you retire.

n People used to be able to scrimp and save and choose to retire early. No more. Not unless you’re independently wealthy and extremely healthy because you’ll no longer have the opportunity to get early retiree health care coverage.

n Those who are 55, the company suggests you get out now because, otherwise, you won’t get pre-Medicare coverage. Thanks for all your service, here’s your hat and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

There has been a great deal of confusion over these changes, and a number of employees are being forced to make quick decisions about their futures with little information.

Where’s the company’s commitment?

The Guild believes these changes should have been subject to bargaining, and we are in discussions with our attorney to fight these changes. That’s my commitment to you.