A publication of the Newspaper Guild of Pittsburgh

CWA Local 38001 - www.pghguild.com

Vol.10,No.3                                                                                                                              

October 4, 2002

 A shot across our bow

The post-contract honeymoon, such as it was, is apparently over.

The latest in a series of management’s anti-Guild moves is so heavy handed and transparent that it would be laughable were it not so harmful to six of our members - four part-time reporters on layoff, a news assistant seeking a reporting position and our president, Mike Bucsko.

Here’s the back story:

A month ago, with the impending departure of associates in the North Bureau, the company told Mike Bucsko and Mike Fuoco during a labor/management meeting that it planned to make one of our news assistants an associate reporter in the North. We thought that was great and told the company’ so, but noted that, under the contract, our four laid-off reporters also must he reinstated if a writing position was being filled.

We pointed out that since the news assistant’s salary would remain the same, which is more than an associate, and the four laid-off reporters would earn what they make as stringers, there would be no cost to the company, except for some nominal FICA payments. The staffing problem in the North would he solved. Everyone would be happy. Morale would flourish.

Not so fast, the company said. In that case, we’re not going to put the news assistant in the reporter’s job.

It was as if we had fallen through the looking glass. Why not? we asked. There wouldn’t be any increased cost to the company, we reiterated. They agreed. We noted there had been many positions vacated since the layoffs occurred and the laid-off workers combined only account for 2.2 full-time equivalents. They concurred.

So what’s the problem with our idea?...

 Next membership meeting - Nov. 13

...and, we fire back

Well, they argued, there’s a hiring freeze and it will “appear” to those who count company beans that they had hired 2.2 people despite the fact the economic bottom line would remain the same.

We shook our heads.

Around and around we \vent. We noted the large number of people who have left without being replaced. We noted the hiring freeze is selective because there have been hires. In fact, they had the gall to violate the contract by hiring a part-time paginator when one of our members, a paginator, was laid off. We grieved and they agreed they had violated the contract and brought back our member.

But they refused to budge from their position on the news assistant. A message was sent to city desk reporters calling for a volunteer for the North. Otherwise, it said, someone would be assigned. A reporter stepped forward and volunteered. No, the company unbelievably told her. She resigned from the paper, creating yet another vacancy.

Mike Bucsko was lobbied by two different managers to change the Guild’s position to align it with the company’s plan. Mike declined, again stating our case. And then, a different manager verbally berated Mike in the newsroom, saying she couldn’t believe he was “punishing” one of his own members by not agreeing to the company’s position. With all of these attempts to twist Mike’s arm maybe we should have seen what was going to occur. Late in the afternoon on the day the vacancy was to occur, Mike was summoned into an office and told he would he the one to fill the North job. And, by the way, he was told, this isn’t punitive.

Coincidence? What do you think?

As one member so aptly put it, “This is a shot across our bow.” And we’re firing back. We filed a grievance charging that the company was discriminating against Mike for his union activity and was punishing him for not agreeing to the company’s plan. The resolution we seek is what we first suggested - make the news assistant a writing associate and bring our four laid-off writers back.