The Pacific Northwest Newspaper Guild has no official comment on today’s meeting with P-I negotiators over the effects of a possible sale (or, far more likely, closure) of the P-I. But a P-I staffer has forwarded over an email that the guild just sent to its members describing the session—a session that appears to have resolved little.
From: XXXXX
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 5:51 PM
To: XXXXX
Subject: Today’s meeting with P-I representatives
Guild and P-I representatives began negotiations Tuesday on the effects of the possible closure of the newspaper.
No proposals were exchanged in the talks, which lasted approximately 2 1/2 hours. Negotiations will resume Friday afternoon.
In opening remarks, P-I negotiator Calvin Siemer expressed the company’s interest in reaching an agreement with the Guild over the effects of the sale or closure, and said the company regards the terms in the expired contract as a guide in doing so.
The company said it soon intends to file a federally required WARN notice in anticipation of the work force reductions.
The company confirmed what previously had been stated in Hearst’s announcement on Jan. 9: namely, that the P-I either would be sold, continued as a scaled-down, online-only publication, or closed entirely within 60 days.
Guild Administrative Officer Liz Brown requested that the company explore alternatives to extend the 60-day sale period, and asked what the Guild could do to make an extension feasible for Hearst. The company said it would discuss the request and respond at a later date.
The parties identified severance, continuation of health insurance, accumulated paid time off and other issues to be discussed in the so-called “effects bargaining.”
The Guild will send a written information request to the company to begin the negotiations, and began drafting a proposal on Tuesday afternoon…
Representing the Guild in Tuesday’s meeting were Liz Brown, Guild International Representative Darren Carroll, Athima Chansanchai, Dan Kearney, Kery Murakami and Greg Roberts.
Representing the P-I were Matt Lynch of Washington Employers Inc., Calvin Siemer, an attorney with the San Francisco Chronicle, and Janet Grimley.
How are these details ant of business? The meeting notes of negotiations between a union and employer generally are not for public consumption, especially not all of it. Sure if there is a particular issue where public scrutiny is reasonable then quoting that sentence or paragraph to support a particular point is fine. Of course we are on the edge of our seats to have a blow by blow narration of everything that happens in this situation – is that it? If so it will be a long 60 days (or 120 days or whatever). And even more of course, journalists have proven themselves capable of printing anything and everything just to get qwick titillation so I guess turnabout is fair play in terms newspaper staff being under the microscope of the public’s insatiable desire to know every little bit of useless info about their fellow citizens . . .am I leaving something out?
It’s making Eli feel important, #1
It’s making Eli feel important, #1
How is this newsworthy at all?
@1-4: Would it surprise you to learn that some folks might actually find this quite interesting? Apparently so.
What surprises me is that those who don’t, still feel compelled to not only read it, but also take the time to pass commentary. Weird.
mmm-hmm . . .but isn’t that the living, beating, breathing heart of SLOG? People making saucy tawdry comment about things they care nothing for and know even less about – and usually the more extreme the comment, the better?
@1 … According to Nick Licata EVERYTHING, including union negotiations, should be public fodder.
He’s one of the reasons nothing gets solved around here!
Ha @7. Way to go completely off topic. Got much of an axe to grind?
@6 – I know you love me, but please, keep it civil.
PI reporters might be reading this.