Times Union busters

Think of the conflict that must have raged somewhere inside Jim Odato’s mind when he wrote about the state layoffs proposed by Governor David Paterson in Wednesday’s Times Union. While the longtime state Capitol reporter was penning a story about the governor exempting non-union state workers from the looming 8,900 layoffs, his own union was battling behind the scenes to save jobs among the TU’s senior writers –jobs like his own.

The bell tolls this morning for the Capital Region’s largest and most respected daily publication. And when it does, close to a quarter of the paper’s staffers could be wandering onto the unemployment line. If the parent Hearst Corporation has its druthers, many of these layoffs could come from the paper’s senior employees once the Albany Newspaper Guild’s contract is cancelled today. The alternative and equally dismal scenario has the guild picketing against the union-breaking policies the company recently exacted on some of its other workers, such as the staff at the San Francisco Chronicle.

This story starts when the original contract between Hearst and the guild –the local union representing about 280 workers at the paper –expired last summer. Negotiations between the sides continued through the fall and winter, with little progress. Then in February, George Hearst III was appointed publisher of the newspaper.

Hearst, a descendant of William Randolph Hearst, was the chief negotiator for his company on behalf of the Times Union. The move was initially met with cautious optimism, but soon became a harbinger of ominous times ahead. One after another, Hearst-owned papers began to see layoffs and even threats of closure. Less than a month after taking the helm, “Mr. Publisher” announced he needed to cut costs by more than 20 percent at the Times Union, meaning layoffs were imminent.

Of course, layoffs under the rolling contract meant only the newest hires at the paper would be affected. And these employees typically make a fraction of what senior workers make. That’s why Hearst brazenly told guild members last month of his intention to terminate their contract as of this morning.

Though legal, Hearst’s move was a highly unorthodox way of forcing union concessions. The main concession his company is seeking is the ability to can whoever they deem necessary. Deductive reasoning suggests these workers would be many of the veteran employee soaking up large benefit packages and relatively fat paychecks for a job that could be easily pawned off on a pimple-faced Columbia grad more than eager to find a way to start paying back $80,000 worth of tuition loans.

From an anti-labor perspective, threatening to terminate the contract is nothing short of genius. Tell the guild leaders to screw off, assure them their contract will be canceled and that the layoffs will be flowing like spring runoff into the Hudson once it is. Don’t bring them to the drawing table, force them to it. Once their sitting down, nail them to the chair; don’t let ‘em up until they’re broken; shatter the fuckers. Split the goddamn union right down the center of its cerebral cortex. And the best way to do this is eliminate the very union leaders that refuse to make concessions on their contract.

But this is no ordinary union. This is the union representing press. More specifically, this is the only press in the Capital Region that has remained somewhat insulated from the failures of print journalism and news media on a whole. Certainly, the Times Union isn’t perfect. But it’s about as perfect as they come in the tri-city and northern region, considering the thread-bare newsrooms extending from Poughkeepsie to Plattsburgh.

Now Hearst is proposing to cut indiscriminately the workers that allowed the Times Union to adapt into what it is today. The cuts come despite a number of guild concessions, including a 5 percent across-the-board pay reduction among its members.

For what it’s worth, the guild isn’t exactly a pushover either. They’ve already voiced their intention to seek support among Albany’s other unions and to wage aggressive campaigns against the Times Union’s advertisers. They could also strike, which would nail a stake through the heart of everything the newspaper has achieved in this modern era of journalism.

Already, the failed negotiations and the company’s slash-and-burn tactics have taken a noticeable toll on the paper. The guild has chronicled the debacle on a public blog, which features comments from a number of its members regarding a precipitous decline in morale.

“I don’t have words to express the breach of trust I — and I’m sure other members — feel right now,” wrote one veteran TU reporter on the guild’s blog. “One of the bitterest aspects of this is the apparent lack of interest in either appreciating or considering any of the Guild’s good-faith efforts to contribute to a solution. That is: help save our newspaper without destroying its quality entirely.”

And it shows, too. The quality of the paper’s regionally renowned Web site has also diminished over the last few months, although it’s unclear whether this is attributable to the change in publisher or the union negotiations or both.

True, this is a tough time for the news industry and one that’s only bound to get tougher in this economy. Unions must exhibit flexibility during this storm, or face a grizzly demise amid its bluster. But what Hearst is doing to the guild –and the Times Union by extension –is placing in jeopardy basic rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Perhaps “Mr. Publisher” should think about this when he returns to the negotiating table this morning. The fate of the region’s news lies in the balance.