Saturday, September 25 Habitat for Humanity St. Louis (HFHSL) will conduct a ‘build day’ at Herbert and 19th and the Guild is a sponsor.  However, sponsors are limited to the number of volunteers they can provide (12), so we are offering this opportunity to be involved on a first-come, first-served basis.  The first twelve people to call the Guild office at 314-241-7046 will be able to reserve a spot on the crew.

ALL volunteers play a vital role in the project’s completion. It is extremely important that all scheduled volunteers attend their build day. A shortage of volunteers will affect productivity and ultimately will delay the homeowner’s move-in date. Please also note that only volunteers who have registered will be permitted to stay and work. Additional volunteers will be sent home.

Who: 12 volunteers
What: Work on a Habitat home for a day
When: Saturday, Sept 25 from 7:45 to 3 or 3:30
Where: Herbert and 19th

Other details:
- Habitat will provide a lunch and water. Any other snacks, breakfast or beverage you must provide.
- This is a full day commitment. If you volunteer, you must be able to be there the entire time.
- We have a waiver form for volunteers to sign and a volunteer packet with full details to volunteers.

Habitat for Humanity seeks, “to eliminate poverty housing and homelessness from the world and to make decent shelter a matter of conscience and action.”  They do this by inviting people of all backgrounds, races and religions to build houses in partnership with families in need.

	Habitat volunteers and homeowners build side-by-side in New Orleans, Louisiana

How does it work?

• Through volunteer labor and donations of money and materials, Habitat builds and rehabilitates simple, decent houses alongside our homeowner (partner) families.
• Habitat is not a giveaway program. In addition to a down payment and monthly mortgage payments, homeowners invest hundreds of hours of their own labor (sweat equity) into building their Habitat house and the houses of others.
• Habitat houses are sold to partner families at no profit and financed with affordable loans.
• The homeowners’ monthly mortgage payments are used to build still more Habitat houses.

There has been some confusion since the company posted notice about selecting your second furlough week; especially since it included an option of taking a 1.92% pay decrease – along with an extra vacation week – in lieu of an unpaid week.  That was fine but the notice also gave everyone until September 9 to decide how they wanted to take their furlough.

Many believed that the September 9 deadline meant that they had until then to provide a date or that they would automatically be put on the 1.92% pay reduction.  Such is not the case.  The Guild met recently with P-D management and no one is being forced to do anything.  However, the company does need to know how you intend to take your furlough in order to properly schedule work shifts and vacation weeks.  So members need to let management know as soon as possible how they intend to take their furlough and, if they are intending to take an unpaid week, which week that will be.

Management did tell us that, later on,  people that need to change weeks will be allowed to do so and that they will work with our members to make it as easy as they can.

Management also said that, for those who opt to take the 1.92% pay reduction, any overtime will be paid at the full rate of pay.  The 1.92% cut will  not impact your time-and-a-half pay.

However, it needs to be pointed out that for those who took their first furlough as a full week – and who also filled out their ‘weekly certification’ paperwork with the Division of Unemployment – not taking another unpaid week (and taking the pay reduction instead) would mean that you are forfeiting your right to collect unemployment insurance for your second week of furlough (if you are unfamiliar with this subject you can find notices about it on our website).

If you have any other questions you may call the Guild office at 314-241-7046 or contact your supervisor or P-D Human Resources.  But make it easy on yourself and don’t delay, do it today.

*               *               *               *

The P-D also posted new policies for newsroom employees regarding freelancing.  This important issue is made even more so by the tough economic times and our recent decrease in rate of pay.  Those hoping to supplement their income should understand – - that yes you should always discuss possible freelancing gigs with a senior editor; it’s not only required, it makes sense and can prevent a lot of hassles – - and yes, under the law the company has the right to promulgate work rules but – - we still have a contract that states, “the Company agrees that limitations on free-lancing or other outside commercial activities shall be narrowly drawn and shall not be arbitrary.”

So understand that when the paper states that they are going to interpret what constitutes a conflict of interest in broad terms, they could very well be in violation of our contract by denying your right to freelance for a particular publication and you might have recourse through the grievance process.  Were that to occur, in filing a grievance the Guild would demand you be compensated for any income you were improperly denied.

So obey the rules but don’t always just take management’s word for it.  Check with your union.  Ask your steward.

Happy Labor Day everybody.

Following a course of events that can only be classified as “regressive bargaining” the Guild filed charges last week with the National Labor Relations Board against the Pekin Daily Times.

Members in our Pekin unit – who successfully organized and voted to join the Guild in October of 2008 and who have been engaged in bargaining their first contract since then – have worked tirelessly alongside Sector Rep Jay Schmitz getting a number of issues signed off at the bargaining table.  They were down to only a few remaining items when Gatehouse Vice President Scott Champion left the company.  At that point his replacement at the bargaining table, Bill Scanlon, entered the picture and proceeded to present proposals which went directly against issues that had already settled by the parties.

When our side pointed out that what Scanlon had proposed dealt with issues that we already had TA’ed (settled as ‘tentative agreements’).  His reply was to define ‘tentative’ as something akin to not final.  For the record, collective bargaining involves many issues, proposals, positions and stands and deals with a lot of back and forth.  The only way to move the process forward is to “TA” items as they arise and are settled.  When this happens, both sides sign and date the tentative agreement.  When all issues are resolved, the contract is complete and it is presented to the membership for a vote.  Walking away from a TA that has a date and signatures on it is bad faith bargaining of the worst kind and so we filed an Unfair Labor Practice charge.  What happens next is that the NLRB will conduct an investigation and issue a decision (BTW, this is the second ULP we’ve had to file in these negotiations – we filed one earlier that dealt with mileage reimbursement and the NLRB ruled in our favor).

*          *          *          *          *

Saturday, members of our Pekin Daily Times unit replaced their outgoing unit secretary-treasurer and elected Jon Reed in her place.  Jon is a a graphic designer and began working for the PDT in November of 2003.  Jon has been active with the union from the outset and his election provides continuity to a group of officers that includes Unit Chair Sharon Harris and Vice Chair Amy Kamp.

Following nominations a mobilization meeting was held.  Members were briefed on the current state of negotiations and were walked through the process involving a ULP.  Strategy and available courses of action were also analyzed and discussed.

Following our recent (Feb 15) arbitration victory, which mandated that Guild retirees moved involuntarily from a low-deductible plan to a mid-deductible plan be reimbursed the difference, the company began issuing checks to Guild members.  Then, of course, things went and got complicated.

The arbitrator’s ruling had a second mandate and that was that those retirees be placed back on the low-deductible plan.  Normally that would not be a problem except for one thing:  during the time that elapsed between the (arbitration) hearing and ruling, the collective bargaining expired.  And the Company asserted that their obligation to place retirees back on the low deductible plan ended with the yellow contract.

Most members are already aware of the many legal issues with which our local has become embroiled concerning whether or not rights “vest” and are carried forward from contract to contract.  We have two cases currently in federal court and both concern retirees and their medical coverage.  So the company’s assertion that their obligation ended with the signing of the new agreement, was not the first time they’d made that argument.  This was, however, the first time they’d made it about a case in the yellow (2004-2009) contract.  And, since Arbitrator William Daniel had ruled so recently, the parties went back and asked for a further arbitral ruling on the issue of how long that remedy is to be applied and what he came back with was not what we had hoped for; he ruled that the company’s obligation ends with the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, which means that no one will be reinstated to the low-deductible medical plan.

Before everyone starts reading too much into this, a few things should be pointed out.  First, unlike our court cases, this issue concerned the yellow contract – not the blue contract, which ran from 1994-2004.  Second, the two contracts do not have identical language.  Third, unlike our court cases, the lifetime argument was not front and center in the low-deductible issue.  The low-deductible case involved “linkage” language in our (yellow) contract which connected the level of coverage our retirees receive to the level of coverage currently employed management receives.  That language is clear and unambiguous and it’s why the company will wind up paying Guild retirees $80,000 in medical cost reimbursements before this is all over and done.  Fourth, our cases in federal court do not have anything to do with linkage; they have to do with vesting and, more importantly, they also concern a different part of the contract.

So, although we are disappointed that, after a lifetime of hard work, our (post June, 2004) retirees are having their coverage reduced, we do not believe that this spells disaster for our court cases involving 1994-2004 retirees who had their coverage eliminated.

So where are we now?  As it stands, yellow contract retirees will still get their reimbursements.   First, those pre 65 were issued checks (which reflect the additional payments Lee would have made had those retirees still been enrolled in the low-deductible plan).  Now, those post 65 are being contacted about their soon-to-be-mailed checks.  Both mailings, by the way, are for money owed for 2009.  The money due for 2010 will be mailed in August, after waiting for the end of claims processed during the period from January 1, 2010 to the start of the new contract on March 28.

We will keep you informed of further developments as they occur.

The discount is called the AT&T Store Union Discount and all CWA members are eligible.

It’s called that  because you have to have it done in an AT&T “union” store.  You can’t do it over the phone.  Also, not all AT&T phone stores are actually owned by AT&T (here’s a PDF of all the AT&T-owned stores in the metropolitan area so you can find the one nearest you).  Lists are already up on Guild bulletin boards.

They MAY want to see a drivers license and a union card.  Mine didn’t, but that doesn’t prove anything.  I’m told some do want to see a union card.  Union cards were reissued last year and our stewards passed them out.  You should have gotten yours then –- they’re good for three years.  However, if you didn’t get one or if you need a replacement, we can order one for you, no problem.  Just call the office and let us know.  Or contact your steward.  And, of course, you’ll need to know your local’s number (hint: it’s at the top of this site).

The FAN number is 18463 and all of our members get a 19% discount on their plan.

Update:  We have a report that the store in the South County Mall can no longer process the requests.

Guild members at the St. Louis Review met recently to elect a new unit chair (that position had come open when Pam Heiger announced that she was stepping down due to demands on her time with family matters).  Nominated and elected without opposition was Jean Anthony, a   20-year member, who works in circulation.  Jean, mother and grandmother of two, is a longtime union supporter and activist who served on the last two negotiation committees representing her coworkers.  An avid reader who loves a good mystery, Jean’s love of words was obviously passed on to her children, as her daughter Chris is the assistant director of the Shakespearean Theater of Los Angeles.

Welcome aboard, Jean!

In a case involving two expired bargaining agreements between the Post Dispatch and Local 38N Graphic Communications Conference/IBT (one agreement that was effective from November 1994 until April 2002, and another that was effective from April 2002 until April 2006) the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri ruled on June 18 (Local 38N Graphic Communications Conference/IBT v. St. Louis Post Dispatch LLC, E.D. Mo., No. 4:09CV438-DJS, 6/18/10) that, “By the terms of the parties’ agreements, a duty to arbitrate the instant grievances does not exist, and the Court cannot compel defendant to arbitrate in the absence of a contractual obligation to do so.”

Local 38N alleged in its complaint that in 2008 and early 2010, the P-D made unilateral changes to health benefits of individuals who retired under both agreements.  Local 38N filed grievances about the changes and demanded arbitration.  When the P-D refused to arbitrate, Local 38N filed its lawsuit.

Sure sounds like our case, doesn’t it? This ruling is likely to cause a lot of our retirees to panic, thinking that this is our case before the court.  It isn’t.  Many may assume that a negative ruling on such a similar issue means we’re doomed.  It doesn’t.

What needs pointing our here is that both of the collective bargaining agreements contained arbitration provisions which stated that grievances that arose under the agreements but were based on events that occurred after the termination of the agreements were excluded from the jurisdiction of the arbitrator.

So our case, which addresses “lifetime” benefits and which asserts that our member’s rights were vested and then carried forward, remains before the court.  The Pressmen case should not impact how ours is decided.  In fact, while reading the award , something jumps off the page and comes right at you.  It is the third footnote in the ruling.  It’s on page four and it states, “Another case pending in this district, Newspaper Guild of St. Louis, Local 36047, TNG-CWA v St. Louis Post-Dispatch LLC, involves a similar dispute.  However, a substantial difference in the agreements underlying these actions exists, namely, the language included in article XI, section 4 of the agreements between the parties to this action.”

So there ya go (by the way, I think they meant Article XVI).

Keep the faith.

where, apparently, so many workers are committing suicide by jumping to their deaths from the high-rise dorms of the Foxconn factory that the company has now installed giant safety nets between dorm buildings.  Read more about working conditions at the plant that is providing final assembly of iPhones.

Read more about the suicides

In an act of defiance to Arbitrator William Daniel’s ruling, Lee Enterprises has refused to place the Guild’s recent retirees back into the low-deductible plan, stating that while Daniel “ordered the P-D to restore the low deductible option for the affected retirees under the 2004-2009 contract…he did not order the P-D to reinstate the low deductible plan beyond the term of the 2004-2009 agreement.”

Here we go again.

This all started in December of 2008, when P-D retirees who left under the (then current) contract were taken off the low-deductible plan and placed on Lee’s mid-deductible plan.  Not only were the deductibles higher, but our retirees incurred additional costs because they were removed from a 90/10 plan and placed on an 80/20 plan.   And once again, those who left with a promise from the paper (considering how the company provided incentives and lowered the retirement age, you could even say they were “lured” off the property) found themselves living on fixed incomes and being forced to cope with rising insurance costs.

The Guild immediately filed a grievance.  That grievance went to arbitration and, on February 15 of this year, the Guild emerged from that process victorious and fully vindicated in our position.  The company had stated that they could remove our retirees because the low-deductible plan was not available for management retirees.  We argued that our retirees medical coverage was not linked to management retirees but, rather, current management employees.  The arbitrator agreed and issued a ruling that directed the company to refund our retirees the difference in coverage (those checks have been issued) and reinstate them to the low-deductible plan.

However, on March 28 a new contract took effect and the company now maintains that as the old agreement ended, so too did their obligation to provide the better coverage.  Letters from Lee to our yellow contract retirees state that they will be kept on the mid-deductible plan.  Our position, however, has not changed; there is still a low deductible plan – it has not gone away.  Current management employees are on that plan.  Our retirees should be on it, as well.

The Guild has already notified the arbitrator and asked for a further arbitral ruling.  In the meantime we also filed a grievance.  We have to take this a step at a time but it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the parties could find themselves in federal court once more.  Stay tuned for further updates.

Nominations for TNG Sector Conference – held in Washington, DC July 24 and 25 – will occur on Thursday, June 10.  Nominations will open at noon and again at 6 pm that same day in the Guild office, 1015 Locust St, suite 1040.

Anyone wishing to place someone’s name in nomination, should come to the Guild office at those times.  Interested parties may also self-nominate.

At the May 13 Executive Committee meeting, it was decided to send three delegates to the sector conference.  The Executive Committee also voted to send one delegate to the CWA Convention, which immediately follows the sector conference in DC and runs from July 26-29.  To be a delegate to the CWA Convention, one must first attend the TNG Sector Conference.

Should there be more nominees than delegate slots available, an election will be conducted by mail.

Active members from all bargaining units are eligible to attend as delegates and the local pays travel and hotel expenses, along with per diem.  Please note that the local does not pay for lost time; those who attend typically use vacation days.