Back for more from the Times
, president of Local 140-N of the Graphic Communications Conference/International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which represents pressroom workers at the Los Angeles Times, explains the background to the union's fight for jobs.
I WANTED to give you information regarding our next scheduled action against the Los Angeles Times. At the end of our February 23 rally, we chanted, "We will be back," and we plan to be on Monday, March 30, to protest the company's decision to send 63 long-time employees on their way with absolutely no severance.
Some of us, of which I am included, have worked for this company loyally and faithfully for three decades. In the face of major cuts over the last decade and the transfer of ownership, we, the pressroom employees, were forced to strap on a chastity belt in the form of organizing a union. The company found ways to screw us anyway. I believe society and the law call it rape. That is exactly how we feel--raped!
We attempted to negotiate a fair and amicable contract with our employer, only to have them reject our most dear proposals outright. The contract we ratified was a do-or-die situation, considering that the Tribune Company announced the bankruptcy in the middle of our ratification meeting with the membership.
Coincidence? We don't believe so. That well-orchestrated move by the company convinced many in our bargaining unit to ratify this contract, regardless of the fact that it favored management and their rights to operate their business.
As you know, the Tribune Company received permission from the bankruptcy court to offer severance of two weeks for the first year of service and one week for every year thereafter up to 52 weeks. An individual would have to work for 51 years to receive full severance.
As union employees, we were offered one-month severance--or, if we agree to drop all of our grievances and labor board charges, we would receive an additional month of severance. Most of our membership described this offer as "blackmail," which we on the negotiations committee rejected, as recommended by our membership.
Our contract states that the company may fashion severance for our unit, so the question is why are we being offered less? As a result of rejecting their offer and the company rejecting our counterproposals, negotiations ended without an agreement on severance for our members. Thus, we are being cast aside without any severance whatsoever. The company is abiding by the WARN Act (because it's the law and they have no choice), and the date we are officially separated from the company is April 6, 2009.
We have filed charges with the National Labor Relations Board against the company for the "bad faith" bargaining that the company demonstrated during this process. We are going back to the streets to make our plight heard, and so the public will know how this company is attempting to destroy our new local and the backs of our members.
We followed the law in organizing our shops, while the company ignored our rights, and now they are punishing 63 hard-working men and women for exercising their rights under the law.
The remaining employees continue to be at the mercy of this company, which claims to respect our rights, but truthfully does not. We intend to inform the public and the media what has been taking place behind the LA Times' anti-union doors, and hope that we have your support. See you on the corner of 1st and Spring on Monday, March 30, at 11:30 a.m.
