Wednesday, January 03, 2007
How Our Pressroom Appears Part One
With the union election to start tomorrow at the Olympic Plant, our pressroom has been transformed with posters, banners, and other handy information on why we do not need a union at the Los Angeles Times. I have taken many photographs to give you a feel of what the pressroom looks like. All pressroom supervisors and management are wearing shirts that urge the employees to vote no. I was offered a shirt, under the condition I wear the shirt tomorrow, I declined to do so.
Labels: Los Angeles Times, Union, Vote
posted by Ed Padgett |
¶ 10:21 PM 
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
"We already did GAMBLE and look at what happened to us"
Uh, what happened to us? We're still employed and earning top wages?
Uh, what happened to us? We're still employed and earning top wages?
# posted by 
: 11:41 PM
: 11:41 PM
Anonymous said...
Why doesn't the Tribunes "Union Free" website have an area for comments? Why are we forced to swallow "their" point of view without response on their site? I'm beginning to think they are afraid to hear responses or questions from anonymous employees that have not made up their mind.
Management says in their meetings that the presspersons do not need a union. I still have not heard a reasonable reason why. Are they afraid it might be harder to sell The Los Angeles Times with a union pressroom? Is management concerned that the union demands might "cut" into profits, therefore cutting into upper managements pay or bonuses?
The "We don't need a third party" responses from management have me kind of puzzled. If Tribune is the first party and the union is the third party, then who is the second party? Can it really be the employees?
They said that things could be worse with a union, be better or stay the same. Brilliant.
It seems like that when Tribune wants to increase value or profits, they don't come up with some new marketing scheme or buy an up and coming business ( see You Tube or My Space ), they just cut profits from their biggest profit provider: The Los Angeles Times. Is this true?
Do our profits help pay for other Tribune contracts with union pressrooms regarding benefits or predetermined pay increases or bonuses ? Have the Tribune "union" presspersons caught up to us in salary after we had been paid well for many years to keep the union out ? Are we 20 percent of Tribunes overall profit?
Our supervisors in the pressroom look concerned. They wear their assigned "Vote No" t- shirts and hats but they have no answers. Ask them what they would do in our shoes. See if you get a truthful response. Or just the prescribed company rhetoric. How will the vote affect our supervisors ?
What if Tribune breaks up and doesn't sell the L.A Times. Will we be okay in the future?
These are questions that I have.
When it comes time to vote, be educated and vote what's best for you and your family,your fellow employees and the future our "craft".
The vote date is getting close. Let's hear some talk.
Why doesn't the Tribunes "Union Free" website have an area for comments? Why are we forced to swallow "their" point of view without response on their site? I'm beginning to think they are afraid to hear responses or questions from anonymous employees that have not made up their mind.
Management says in their meetings that the presspersons do not need a union. I still have not heard a reasonable reason why. Are they afraid it might be harder to sell The Los Angeles Times with a union pressroom? Is management concerned that the union demands might "cut" into profits, therefore cutting into upper managements pay or bonuses?
The "We don't need a third party" responses from management have me kind of puzzled. If Tribune is the first party and the union is the third party, then who is the second party? Can it really be the employees?
They said that things could be worse with a union, be better or stay the same. Brilliant.
It seems like that when Tribune wants to increase value or profits, they don't come up with some new marketing scheme or buy an up and coming business ( see You Tube or My Space ), they just cut profits from their biggest profit provider: The Los Angeles Times. Is this true?
Do our profits help pay for other Tribune contracts with union pressrooms regarding benefits or predetermined pay increases or bonuses ? Have the Tribune "union" presspersons caught up to us in salary after we had been paid well for many years to keep the union out ? Are we 20 percent of Tribunes overall profit?
Our supervisors in the pressroom look concerned. They wear their assigned "Vote No" t- shirts and hats but they have no answers. Ask them what they would do in our shoes. See if you get a truthful response. Or just the prescribed company rhetoric. How will the vote affect our supervisors ?
What if Tribune breaks up and doesn't sell the L.A Times. Will we be okay in the future?
These are questions that I have.
When it comes time to vote, be educated and vote what's best for you and your family,your fellow employees and the future our "craft".
The vote date is getting close. Let's hear some talk.
# posted by : 3:16 AM
: 3:16 AM
Gee I didnt know some people were still stuck on stupid Dee Dee Dee ( as carlos mencia says )
# posted by : 5:11 AM
: 5:11 AM
From the Teamsters for a Democratic Union web site.
San Francisco Chronicle
Newspaper Teamsters Told ‘Vote Till You Get it Right’
December 6, 2006. Teamster members of GCC Local 4-N at the San Francisco Chronicle have spent the last few years fighting for a decent contract that upholds industry standards for union pressmen. Despite their united struggle, they were forced to accept concessions by lack of support from the top Teamster leadership.
In an Oct. 13 letter, GCC President (and IBT Vice President-elect) George Tedeschi ordered Local 4-N’s leadership to hold a meeting for Chronicle workers to vote on whether to ratify a concessionary agreement that he had bargained. At that meeting, the contract was narrowly defeated.
When Tedeschi learned that members had rejected his deal, he ordered the local to conduct another vote, this time set in the workplace, on the company’s turf. The contract then passed by a wide margin. The deal includes job cuts, two-tier vacation accrual, mandatory overtime, loss of past practice, and outsourcing of the entire operation in three years.
A Long Struggle
All along, the Chronicle workers have had to fight not only the company, but union leaders who seem to have forgotten the meaning of solidarity. First the officers of Teamster mailers and drivers broke ranks with the bargaining coalition to settle agreements that included a no strike clause. When it looked like the Machinists would go on strike and that the members of 4-N would honor the line, Hoffa’s special assistant Rome Aloise sent a letter to the drivers reminding them that he would order them to cross it. Aloise and Tedeschi publicly undercut Local 4-N, and echoed the company’s claims of poverty even though the company never opened their books to the union.
Post a Comment
San Francisco Chronicle
Newspaper Teamsters Told ‘Vote Till You Get it Right’
December 6, 2006. Teamster members of GCC Local 4-N at the San Francisco Chronicle have spent the last few years fighting for a decent contract that upholds industry standards for union pressmen. Despite their united struggle, they were forced to accept concessions by lack of support from the top Teamster leadership.
In an Oct. 13 letter, GCC President (and IBT Vice President-elect) George Tedeschi ordered Local 4-N’s leadership to hold a meeting for Chronicle workers to vote on whether to ratify a concessionary agreement that he had bargained. At that meeting, the contract was narrowly defeated.
When Tedeschi learned that members had rejected his deal, he ordered the local to conduct another vote, this time set in the workplace, on the company’s turf. The contract then passed by a wide margin. The deal includes job cuts, two-tier vacation accrual, mandatory overtime, loss of past practice, and outsourcing of the entire operation in three years.
A Long Struggle
All along, the Chronicle workers have had to fight not only the company, but union leaders who seem to have forgotten the meaning of solidarity. First the officers of Teamster mailers and drivers broke ranks with the bargaining coalition to settle agreements that included a no strike clause. When it looked like the Machinists would go on strike and that the members of 4-N would honor the line, Hoffa’s special assistant Rome Aloise sent a letter to the drivers reminding them that he would order them to cross it. Aloise and Tedeschi publicly undercut Local 4-N, and echoed the company’s claims of poverty even though the company never opened their books to the union.
# posted by : 11:20 AM
: 11:20 AM
Links to this post:
<< Home
