![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
About 80 percent of the members The Boston Globe’s largest union turned out to vote on whether to accept $10 million in wage and benefit cuts that the newspaper’s owner, The New York Times Co., says it needs to keep operating the money-losing paper.
Results of the voting won’t be known until later this evening.
Nearly 550 of 690 editorial, advertising, and business office workers represented by the Boston Newspaper Guild cast ballots on a contract proposal that would cut their pay by about 10 percent, slice health and retirement benefits, and eliminate lifetime job guarantees, union officials said.
The Times Co. has said it would impose a 23 percent pay cut on Guild employees should they fail to ratify the contract proposal.
The vote was no, 277-265.
I don't see the Globe lasting past October -- hell, it'll be lucky to get through the summer. (Edit: Or, hey, maybe I'm wrong, cowed by management's slightly-skewed-for-scare-tactics numbers.)
In slightly-better-by-way-of-schadenfreude news, Sam Zell (not inaccurately called "an idiot in terms of journalism" -- but I see quite a few arguments for broadening the terms of the man's idiocy) might lose control of Tribune, which is about two years too late to do any real good. Still, the man's a malignancy on the industry and it'll improve merely by association by having him excised.
Results of the voting won’t be known until later this evening.
Nearly 550 of 690 editorial, advertising, and business office workers represented by the Boston Newspaper Guild cast ballots on a contract proposal that would cut their pay by about 10 percent, slice health and retirement benefits, and eliminate lifetime job guarantees, union officials said.
The Times Co. has said it would impose a 23 percent pay cut on Guild employees should they fail to ratify the contract proposal.
The vote was no, 277-265.
I don't see the Globe lasting past October -- hell, it'll be lucky to get through the summer. (Edit: Or, hey, maybe I'm wrong, cowed by management's slightly-skewed-for-scare-tactics numbers.)
In slightly-better-by-way-of-schadenfreude news, Sam Zell (not inaccurately called "an idiot in terms of journalism" -- but I see quite a few arguments for broadening the terms of the man's idiocy) might lose control of Tribune, which is about two years too late to do any real good. Still, the man's a malignancy on the industry and it'll improve merely by association by having him excised.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
My friend Shirley was one of those who voted against the offer -- was quoted in AP's story and everything.
As for Zell, couldn't happen to a nicer guy. I know the banks could be just as bad, but anything's got to be better than that blithering idiot. (Then again, I think I thought the same thing when he came in and got rid of FitzSimmons.)
From:
no subject
From:
no subject