|
Brian Tierney, who we last saw channeling Hemingway in a letter to State Rep. Mark B. Cohen, has sent out a new memo to the guild, urging for calm, peace, no strike and unity! (It remains to be seen if his definition of being a uniter, not a divider, is the same one as G.W. Bush.)
An excerpt:
What we are proposing is in line with most other companies, both in the media business and other businesses. Ask your friends and neighbors what their companies are doing. [...]
Will this proposal cost everyone a little more? Perhaps. But it is critically important for everyone to understand how difficult the newspaper business has become. You can look all over the country for examples. We simply can no longer afford the very generous pay and benefits of a bygone era, when newspapers dominated the media. We would much prefer for everyone to share a little bit in the pain, so that we can spare perhaps dozens of our colleagues from losing their jobs altogether.
If you’re as confused as I am, here’s the deal: Tierney is talking about the pension fund, and what management… wants… agh! I can’t do it! I can’t write about pension funds! And I like financial news and numbers and I could, at one time, do integrate and derive and even do a little vector calculus. (That didn’t stop me from getting a C in Calc II, but, hey, you take what you can get.)
Anyway, Steve Volk has much more of a stomach for this than I do, and he’s continuing to blog over at The Daily Strike.
Update: Byko and the Guild respond!
Skipping over the self-serving blather, Brian Tierney writes (on Page 2) that “we are all in this together” — except when it comes to directing the investments of our pension fund.
That’s when it becomes “me,” not “we.”
We have a problem with that for one simple reason: It’s OUR money, put there for US by Knight-Ridder. It is not Brian’s money to invest. The fund is both safe and healthy.
Blah blah blah etc. You know the deal with these things. The rest of the Tierney memo is still after the jump.
December 7, 2006
To: PN Employees
From: Brian Tierney
An Open Letter to Employees:
At the very beginning of negotiations with our unions, I said that I would treat our discussions with confidentiality and respect, and not negotiate in public.
However, with all the rhetoric going around, I feel we must separate some facts from fiction. Let me
highlight a few examples. We are not proposing to take away anyone’s pension benefit. The Pension Fund is federally guaranteed. We are only proposing to no longer make additional commitments to the Fund. Those employees with many years of service have already earned and vested their pension benefit. The benefit you have will still be paid to you upon your retirement. Employees with many years ahead of them before retirement will have plenty of time to plan for their own retirement with a variety of tax-advantaged plans, for example a 401(k). Everyone’s existing pension is fully protected by law. It is illegal, immoral, and repugnant to take any actions that would threaten the security and integrity of the Pension Fund.
We are offended by suggestions that our proposal to manage the Fund has the ulterior motive of “raiding the fund” or stealing its capital. Our investors, including another union’s pension fund, are highly visible and respected members of the Philadelphia community. We are saddened by the rumor-mongering that has spread fears among the Guild rank and file. Our proposal to manage the Fund has a simple motive; we want to maximize the investment returns of the Fund because we are fully responsible for its funding level. We are legally bound to insure the full funding of the Fund, and recent
Federal legislation has only strengthened the legal framework of such funding requirements. Since we are on the hook for the unfunded liability, we want the decisionmaking authority to maximize the investment returns of the Fund. The Guild has no incentive to maximize returns since we must fund any shortfalls.
We have also proposed to allow the membership to accrue additional pension benefits in the legacy Fund. This would involve merging the Guild’s pension into a multiemployer plan that will allow the Guild to increase future benefits. We have already begun looking for merger partners in order to speed this process along.
If the fund remains independent, our management of the Fund will be completely transparent; all investment and administration decisions, as well as the Fund’s performance, will be shared with Guild leadership.
What we are proposing is in line with most other companies, both in the media business and other businesses. Ask your friends and neighbors what their companies are doing.
Remember, you will continue to be guaranteed your legacy pension benefit, the “severance” pension we already fund, and your current 401(k) plan. And, if we find a merger partner, the Guild could fund additional benefits to the legacy pension.
Will this proposal cost everyone a little more? Perhaps. But it is critically important for everyone to understand how difficult the newspaper business has become. You can look all over the country for examples. We simply can no longer afford the very generous pay and benefits of a bygone era, when newspapers dominated the media. We would much prefer for everyone to share a little bit in the pain, so that we can spare perhaps dozens of our colleagues from losing their jobs altogether.
There is a silver lining in this cloud. If we can break the downward spiral of this business, if we can save dozens of newsroom jobs, if we can improve the quality of our newspapers, if we can invest in marketing and product and equipment and technology, if we can grow circulation and thereby grow advertising, we can, in fact, win, and win big, together as a team. And that’s my dream. I want these newspapers to be great, and I’m sorry that we must take such painful steps to achieve greatness. But to those of you who understand this vision and understand the need for these difficult decisions, you will understand that it is our only choice.
I am fundamentally optimistic. I want to break the cycles of negative thinking, of “us vs. them.” We are all in this together, and need to keep the best interests of this fine journalistic institution in the front of our minds. I want this organization to still be around, to still employ thousands of people, to still make a difference in our community, and to still be relevant for decades and decades to come.
Let’s work together to make this happen.
Not bad. But I think I’d go with “decision-making” over “decisionmaking.” Decisionmaking might be acceptable, but it looks weird and the former is easier to read.
Monday: Hemingway and Tierney, Deconstructed
|
Leave a Reply