A Taylor-made Globe?

In what may prove to be very good news for readers of the Boston Globe, a group led by Stephen Taylor — a prominent member of the family that sold the paper to the New York Times Co. in 1993 — has, if I'm reading the tea leaves correctly, moved into the pole position to buy the paper.

Beth Healy reports in today's Globe that Taylor and California-based Platinum Equity have made it to the next round, and that both groups will tour the paper around Labor Day. Meanwhile, a group led by Partners HealthCare chairman Jack Connors and Boston Celtics co-owner Stephen Pagliuca — pointedly described as having submitted "the lowest bid" — will be on the outside looking in. Whether that might change is unclear.

No new owner of the Globe, not even a Taylor, is going to restore the glory days. But the Taylors were very good stewards of the paper, and Stephen Taylor, a former Globe business executive, is said to be one of the sharper members of his family. In addition, a Media Nation source who knows him tells me he's a good guy.

Connors, too, is a good guy. But he's also involved in just about every civic and business group in Greater Boston, and it's hard to believe he could offer the Globe the sort of independent leadership it needs. Given that he and Pagliuca are said to be interested in pursuing some sort of non-profit arrangement, you also have to wonder whether they've got enough capital to pull it off.

According to Healy, both the Taylor group and Platinum submitted bids to buy the Globe, the Telegram & Gazette of Worcester and Boston.com for about $35 million (a far cry from the $1.1 billion the Times Co. paid 16 years ago for just the Globe) and agreed to assume $59 million in pension liabilities.

Given that Times Co. chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. recently said price will not be the only consideration, I would think a group with deep roots in both Boston and journalism would have an advantage over Platinum, whose executives may be interested mainly in the real estate.

For big-money investors, $94 million is not an enormous sum. I suspect that what will separate the winner from the losers in this deal is the willingness and ability to keep losing money until the paper can be restructured into a profitable business. And yes, I'm confident that someone can do it.

More: Over at Beat the Press, Ralph Ranalli laments the exclusion of the Connors group, arguing that non-profit is the only viable model for the newspaper business moving forward. Ralph and I agree, though, that Platinum would be bad news all around.

Aggravation over aggregation

In my latest for the Guardian, I take a look at the increasingly contentious issue of aggregation, and at what constitutes good and bad linking practices.

Where it all went wrong

I'm no advertising expert, but Steve Buttry's post on newspapers' original sin strikes me as being exactly right:

The disastrous error that newspapers made early in our digital lives was treating online advertising as a throw-in or upsell for their print advertisers. Helping businesses connect with customers was always our business. We were facing new technology and new opportunities and we did next to nothing to explore how we might use this new technology to help businesses connect with customers.

We just offered businesses the same old solutions that we offered in print, but pop-up ads and web banners somehow didn't work as well as display ads. Which was just as well, because we told our business customers the ads weren’t worth much by the way we treated them.

Having blown the online-advertising business, newspaper executives are now going to make up for it by charging for online content — likely with miserable results. (Via Steve Yelvington.)

Monetizing the link economy (not)

PaidContent.org has posted an important analysis by media consultant Arnon Mishkin showing that aggregator sites derive far more value by compiling headlines, ledes and links than do the news organizations that actually produce the journalism.

This isn't exactly counterintuitive, but it does run counter to what a lot of us had hoped was true. Jeff Jarvis, more than anyone, has popularized the idea of the "link economy." Trouble is, it may not exist. At the very least, it's likely a lot more complicated than simply a matter of posting links and assuming the linkee will benefit at least as much as the linker.

Here is Mishkin's key insight:

Actually, it shouldn't be surprising to anyone who's thought about how people have historically read a newspaper: They've scanned the headlines and then turned to the sports, movie listings or recipe pages, depending on their real interest. As the saying goes, "People don't check the news to read about the fire, they check it to learn that there wasn't a fire."

Historically, the value of those casual browsers was captured by the newspaper because the readers would have to buy a copy. Now all the value gets captured by the aggregator that scrapes the copy and creates a front page that a set of readers choose to scan. And because creating content costs much more scraping it, there is little rational economic reason to create content.

Mishkin's post comes at a time when news organizations from the Associated Press to News Corp. to the Boston Globe are dipping their toes in the water with respect to charging for their content. That's fraught with difficulties, too, although I'm slightly more bullish about the idea of per-click micropayments than I was even a few months ago.

In the long run, we're going to have to differentiate between good and bad linking. Blogging is the classic example of good linking, since the blogger adds value through analysis and reinterpretation.

But aggregating in a way that removes nearly all incentives to click through to the original news site defines bad linking. The Huffington Post is one example. Newser is an even more egregious example: when you first access the site, you get photos with headlines; click on one and you get a Newser-supplied summary (with more ads); and, finally, with a second click, you jump to the original. Link economy? More like piracy.

No one really knows what the answer is. Mishkin offers some unsatisfying ideas at the end of his post. My own sense is that newspapers need to try a variety of strategies:

• Charging as much as the market will bear for the print edition.
• Developing paid online editions for e-readers, cell phones and laptops (i.e., Times Reader and GlobeReader).
• Removing the "today's paper" feature from their free Web sites. (I would continue to offer all or most of the content for free, but not in the form of an exact substitute.)

The search for a business model continues. Mishkin has punched one more hole in a fantasy a lot of people, including me, had believed in for as long as we could.

(Via Howard Owens' Twitter feed. Owens, you may recall, was a top official at GateHouse Media during that company's legal battle with the New York Times Co. over the Boston Globe's aggregation practices.)

Sulzberger speaks

Even as a third prospective buyer has emerged for the Boston Globe — and even as the New York Times Co. has finally acknowledged that the Globe is for sale, something that's been clear for months — the company's top two executives have broken their silence to say, well, not so fast.

In a story and interview in today's Globe, chief executive Arthur Sulzberger Jr. (photo) and president Janet Robinson express the hope that the paper is back on the road to health, adding that they won't sell unless they can find the right deal — both financially and with regard to "the impact of a potential sale on the community," as Sulzberger puts it.

They also defend their record as stewards of the Globe since 1993, when the Times Co. purchased the paper for $1.1 billion. (The paper is thought to be worth barely a fraction of that today, though that's also true of the newspaper business in general.) "I think this company has supported the Globe during a very, very difficult financial period. It has supported its journalism, it has supported its business-side operations," Robinson says.

Sulzberger gets off the best line. Asked whether company officials regret having bought the Globe, he replies, "How far back should we go? Maybe we regret in 1896 that we bought the New York Times."

My nickel's worth: I think the Times Co. was a reasonably good steward until about a year ago, when the company's own troubles, and fears about the fate of its flagship, the Times, led it to start treating the Globe — and Boston — with contempt.

There have, of course, been deep cuts, including the first layoffs in the Globe's history earlier this year. But the Globe is hardly alone among large regional newspapers in losing its foreign bureaus and in scaling back most of its national ambitions. It remains just about the only paper in its weight class to have a fully functioning Washington bureau.

Still, the lack of communication on the part of the company — most definitely including Sulzberger and Robinson — during the months-long crisis over union concessions led to a sense that management was not willing to share in the sacrifices being asked of its employees. The $20 million in concessions, including $10 million by the Newspaper Guild, the paper's largest union, were truly draconian, even if they were necessary.

The question, at this point, is how much credibility the Times Co. has left with the community. The best answer is to put out a good paper every day, and the Globe has risen to that challenge. Still, I have to believe that a new start under a new owner would be the best outcome, provided the owner wants to get into the business for the right reasons.

Like everyone else, I'm intrigued by the notion that Partners HealthCare chairman Jack Connors and Boston Celtics co-owner Stephen Pagliuca might lead the Globe into some sort of non-profit ownership arrangement, which Jay Fitzgerald explained in the Boston Herald earlier this week. But Connors is a walking conflict of interest. No one knows if he could separate his own interests from those of the Globe's journalistic mission.

In other news, the Boston Phoenix's Adam Reilly has obtained a memo from the Guild reporting that publisher Steve Ainsley has told union official that the paper is heading in the right direction.

And the Herald's Christine McConville reports that Ainsley told the Guild that the paper will soon start charging for access to the paper's Web site, Boston.com, confirming earlier remarks editor Marty Baron made in an appearance on "Greater Boston."

The Globe and non-profit journalism

One of the groups seeking to buy the Boston Globe from the New York Times Co. is considering a non-profit ownership arrangement, according to a report by the Globe's Beth Healy.

The group — headed by Partners HealthCare chairman Jack Connors and Boston Celtics co-owner Stephen Pagliuca — has "proposed a 'civic approach' that would involve a nonprofit foundation to help fund and run the news operation," writes Healy, citing an unnamed source.

The other bidder is a group headed by Stephen Taylor, a prominent member of the family that sold the Globe to the New York Times Co. in 1993.

What Healy does not specify (and perhaps Connors and Pagliuca themselves haven't decided at this point) is whether we're talking about a pure non-profit or a hybrid model.

A hybrid involves setting up a non-profit organization as owner and operator of a for-profit newspaper, an arrangement that has succeeded for the St. Petersburg Times (owned by the Poynter Institute) and, locally, by the New Hampshire Union Leader (the majority owner is the Nackey S. Loeb School of Communications).

Under the hybrid model, a newspaper still has to turn a profit, and the St. Pete Times and the Union Leader have not been immune from cuts. But non-profit owners are generally willing to tolerate far smaller profit margins than large, publicly traded corporations, whose executives have to worry about quarterly reports and the expectations of Wall Street.

The pure non-profit model got its biggest boost earlier this year in a New York Times op-ed piece by Yale investment executives David Swensen and Michael Schmidt. Turning newspapers into endowed institutions, they argued, would insulate them from the economic pressures that are destroying the business. (U.S. Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., has filed legislation that would help turn that vision into a reality, though it's not clear why a change in the law would be necessary.)

As I've written before, though, there is a huge problem with the pure non-profit model: in order to take advantage of the the tax incentives that would make it work, the newspaper's executives would have to stop endorsing political candidates and engaging in other forms of purely political speech. That may work for public radio and public television (after all, the government has been regulating the airwaves since the 1920s), but it would be anathema to a newspaper's mission.

Another aspect of the Connors-Pagliuca bid that's unclear is what role the two men see for themselves if they're not going to be owners in the traditional sense. It all sounds very public-spirited, but I can't imagine they're going to invest their time and money without reserving a very large say over how the Globe is run.

Two years ago I explored various ownership options for the Globe in an article for CommonWealth Magazine. You can read it here.

The Times Co. has clearly lost interest in owning the Globe. Check out Adam Reilly's latest, in which he notes that the company can't even bring itself to acknowledge publicly that it's trying to sell the paper, even though it's, you know, trying to sell the paper.

The sooner this can get done, the better.

Globe may charge for some online content

Boston Globe editor Marty Baron tells "Greater Boston" that the Globe may start charging for some online content. No surprise. It's pretty clear that the Globe and a number of other papers are going to try paid-content experiments of one sort or another. I don't think they're likely to work, but that's another matter.

Whatever the Globe tries, it should make sure that there are no extra charges for its best customers — its print subscribers. And it should stay away from charging for its daily newspaper content. In other words, create a new product that people who don't currently subscribe to the Globe would be willing to pay for.

Not easily done, I realize.

Update: Just watched the segment. Baron says the Globe is looking into charging for "premium" or "specialized" content of some sort. Not sure what that means, but directionally it sounds like the right move.

After the deluge

Now that the Boston Newspaper Guild has decisively approved a $10 million package of wage and benefit cuts, it seems like anyone who's been following this closely should be able to offer some thoughts on what's next for the Boston Globe.

For the time being, though, everything that can be said has already been said several times over. It's a sign of how long this has dragged on that Romenesko offers just the bare bones, and that the trade magazine Editor & Publisher goes with an AP story. A huge story has gotten smaller with the passage of time.

The Guild cuts, along with another $10 million agreed to by the Globe's other unions, are going to be a bitter pill to swallow. Management never fostered a sense of shared sacrifice, which is why a similar package was narrowly defeated last month. Still, simply as a reader, I hope yesterday's vote allows the paper to move forward rather than obsess over the Globe's uncertain present.

More than anything, we should all hope that the vote leads to a quick sale by the New York Times Co. to local owners who will do what they can to preserve the Globe as a leading regional institution. I would argue that the Times Co. was a reasonably good steward until the last year or so. But it all got very ugly very quickly.

This relationship can't end soon enough, provided the right buyers can be found.

Baron, too

Boston Globe editor Marty Baron just sent this e-mail to his troops:

To the staff:

I know how stressful the past several months have been for all of you. Still, despite the pressures and the tension, you have never wavered in your commitment to deliver journalism of the highest caliber.

I want to say thank you.

Thank you for the depth of your dedication. Thank you for your consummate professionalism, even in times of discord and difficulty. And thank you for demonstrating every day that the work of this organization holds powerful and enduring value in our community.

Marty

Totten speaks

The Boston Globe has a brief statement from Guild president Dan Totten:

It has been a long and difficult period for everyone, and we hope that we can now work with prospective buyers to help The Boston Globe and boston.com to carry on with its vital mission to promote good journalism and protect free speech.

Guild approves Globe concessions

The Boston Newspaper Guild has approved a $10 million package of concessions at the Boston Globe. A newsroom source just zapped me the following company-wide e-mail sent by publisher Steve Ainsley.

Dear Colleagues:

I am pleased the Guild membership voted to ratify their new contract. I appreciate the personal sacrifices all Guild members are making, and I thank each one for their commitment to this institution.

The ratification strengthens the stability of The Boston Globe and Boston.com.

Since we now have settled contracts with all our major unions, let me take this opportunity to thank every Globe employee, union and non-union, for the sacrifices you have made to meet the unprecedented challenges we faced at the beginning of the year.

Additionally, thank you for performing to such a high level of accomplishment under such pressure.

Your efforts and sacrifices are making a difference.

— Steve

According to Reuters, the vote was an overwhelming 366 to 179. The Boston Herald offers some additional background.

Could the Guild vote "no" again?

"Beat the Press" blogger Ralph Ranalli, a former Boston Globe staffer and a Guild official back when he was at the Boston Herald, does not rule out another "no" vote as members of the Boston Newspaper Guild decide today on $10 million in concessions negotiated with the New York Times Co. Ranalli writes:

The Times telegraphed its intentions by openly seeking buyers for the Globe before the hugely-important contract with its largest union was settled. The lame duck owner, deep in debt, couldn't make it any plainer that it's in asset-dump mode....

With their position potentially strengthening, the questions facing each Guild member going forward today are: "Is it worth hanging on?" and "How long can I?" The answers may well determine the outcome of today's vote.

We'll know tonight.

Globe publisher calls union analysis "flawed"

Boston Globe publisher Steve Ainsley is back with a lengthy e-mail to employees disputing yesterday's e-mail by Boston Newspaper Guild insurance consultant Bonnie Hanisch. Media Nation obtained a copy earlier this morning.

I realize these internal communications are becoming increasingly arcane. I present them solely in the interest of placing them in the public domain.

On Monday, the Guild will vote on the latest $10 million package in concessions negotiated by union leadership with the New York Times Co. The text of Ainsley's e-mail follows:

Dear Colleagues:

Yesterday an email was distributed by BNG leadership providing Guild members with an analysis of the health care costs under the current conditions vs. under the tentative agreement that you will be voting on this coming Monday, July 20.

We feel that this analysis is flawed, and very misleading. We hope all Guild members have a chance to read the following information before Monday. If there are further questions, please let us know. You deserve accurate information about such an important issue.

Q&A Health Care Costs

Q. The Guild's health care consultant has sent some recent e-mails purporting to show what the new payroll deductions would be effective July 24th. Is this accurate?

A. In a word, no. Health insurance rates will not change effective 7/24/09 under any circumstance. Health insurance rates are set jointly by Union and Globe management Health Fund trustees. In order to change rates the trustees must meet and agree on a new rate structure. This has not happened and will not happen by July 24th. The rates listed by the Union consultant have not been agreed to by the trustees.

Q. Will there be higher health insurance rates if the contract is ratified?

A. The Globe recognizes that if the tentative agreement is ratified with the necessary reduction in quid pro quo payments, this may result in either some additional payroll contributions required by plan participants or a restructuring of the plan to reduce its cost or, more likely, some combination of the two. How much of either may be necessary is unclear at this point. The Globe has suggested to the Union that as part of the rate-setting process that the trustees work together with the plan provider, Harvard Pilgrim, on ways to mitigate the increase through plan design or other changes in cost we can negotiate with Harvard Pilgrim. That has not happened yet. There is a substantial reserve in the Fund which will allow the trustees some time to negotiate with Harvard Pilgrim. We have successfully done this with a number of our other unions and with the Guild, in the past, as well. Projecting rates now, prior to necessary trustee action, is pure speculation.

Q. Is it also correct as the Union states, that if the contract is not ratified that health insurance rates will be lower?

A. Just as trustees must approve an increase in rates, their approval is required to lower rates. The trustees have not agreed to lower rates. If the contract is not ratified, the current rates will stay in effect until such time as they are changed by the trustees. The trustees have a fiduciary duty to ensure that rates are set appropriately. There is currently no information to suggest that drastic reduction in rates, as is suggested by the Union's consultant, is financially sound or justified. The reserve exists in order to assure bills to health providers are paid without interruption and employees' health insurance premiums remain as consistent as possible. The right amount to keep in reserves is decided by the trustees.

Q. What is the role of the Union's health care consultant?

A. The Union's health care consultant is a paid advisor to the Union and to the Union trustees on health care issues. The Globe has its own health care consultant who performs a similar role for the Globe. The consultants are not members of the joint board of trustees. As a result, the Union's health care consultant has no authority to set rates or to implement changes unless and until the trustees as a group approve of any such rates or changes.

Q. Has the Union endorsed the new contract?

A. The Union Executive Committee agreed in negotiations that with the changes the Globe made to its prior final offer, the Committee would "endorse and recommend ratification" to the membership. The Union President signed a side letter which said that expressly, and the individual members of the Committee all signed the tentative Supplemental Agreement....

A final note, we very much hope that the tentative agreement with the Guild is approved on Monday, so we can move past the current imposed wage reduction.

Absent a positive ratification vote, the current wage reduction will continue and the Globe will focus its attention entirely on negotiations in the fall to replace the existing Guild contract which expires fully on December 31, 2009. The Globe, of course, would seek all the changes it needs in all cost and flexibility areas in that new agreement.

Hopefully, after Monday, we all can move forward with the stability of a settled contract through the end of 2010.

We urge everyone to vote.

— Steve

Guild e-mail paints dark picture

The Boston Newspaper Guild's insurance consultant, Bonnie Hanisch, has sent an e-mail to Guild members at the Boston Globe showing that they could bring home slightly more money if they approve a package of concessions totaling $10 million when they vote on July 20. (Media Nation obtained a copy earlier today.)

The cost, though, is high: a brutal reduction in health-insurance and retirement benefits. In fact, the consultant's math is based on an assumption that the average Guild member would choose to reduce her or his 401(k) contribution from 10 percent of salary to 4 percent if the package is rejected, as a similar package was on June 8. Hold the 401(k) contributions steady, and employees would actually make less money with a "yes" vote than with a "no" vote.

So why would anyone vote yes? If the concessions are approved, salaries will be cut by 9 percent (including eight unpaid days off). If they are rejected, the 23 percent pay cut implemented after the "no" vote remains in place.

The e-mail has led to some speculation that the Guild is quietly pushing for another "no" vote, the Phoenix's Adam Reilly reports. Poynter Institute business analyst Rick Edmonds describes the situation facing Guild members as "a choice between a punch in the gut now or being slapped upside the head later," with a "yes" vote merely deferring some of the pain.

Yesterday I had a chance to talk with a few Globe staff members about the vote and whether they think the concessions will be approved this time around. The rough consensus: yes, but there is deep anger at the New York Times Co. over its highhandedness and lack of straightforwardness in communicating with Globe employees.

Look for the vote to be close once again.

The full text of Hanisch's e-mail follows:

The Executive Committee, along with the Governing Board, has asked that I reiterate some of the questions that came up this weekend, along with an example of how you could mitigate the 23% if the contract is not ratified.

First, our medical plan renews on May 1st of each year. Our premiums increased from Harvard Pilgrim by approximately $500,000. At that time, there was an estimated $300,000 in the Taft Hartley Health Fund, and we were expecting an additional $200,000 of new health fund quids that had been negotiated in the last bargaining negotiations. Hence, there was no rate change/contribution changes to the employees.

On April 7th, we began the $10 million concession meetings with the company. Ultimately, part of the concessions was approximately $1.3 million in health care quids that had been negotiated over the past 20 years.

What this means to you — whether the contract is ratified or not, your health insurance contribution rates will increase next May 1, 2010. Based on our estimates, if the contract is ratified, we need $2.5 million of employee contributions. If the contract is not ratified, we need $1 million of employee contributions. (Health care increases are based on the medical claims of this group and those that are participating. These estimates are based on the same health care costs, and an estimated 5% increase.)

If the contract is not ratified, here is an example of how to reduce your costs:

If Ratified
Average Salary: $58,000
Family Health Insurance: -$ 5,492
401K Deductions (Average person in BNG is 10%): -$5,800
Taxes (FICA, FUTA, SUTA, Fed; est. 30%): -$14,012
8 Furlough/Unpaid Days: -$2,231
TOTAL: $30,463*

If Not Ratified
Average Salary: $44,660 (23% reduction)
Family Health Insurance: -$1,170
401K Deductions (change to 4%): -$1,786
Taxes: -$12,511
Zero Furlough/Unpaid Days: $0
TOTAL: $29,193

Difference of $1,270 or $24.42 per week.

If the contract is not ratified, you keep the $1.3 million of quids; you keep the pension plan; you keep the retiree health insurance; you keep the 401(k) match, etc.

If anyone has any questions, please feel free to contact me at xxx.

Thank you.

Bonnie M. Hanisch, CEBS
President
Boston Insurance Group

*As alert Media Nation commenter Tony points out, Hanisch's math is a bit off — the number should be $30,465.

What's the matter with Cleveland?

In my commentary for the Guardian, I take on the latest bad idea to come out of the Cleveland Plain Dealer — reader representative Ted Diadiun's widely mocked claim that bloggers are "pipsqueaks" who steal content.

Moving on in Claremont

As you may have heard, the Eagle Times of Claremont, N.H., folded last week. Martin Langeveld of the Nieman Journalism Lab goes deep, finding that the paper's poor penetration rate made it a marginal operation even in the best of times. Meanwhile, long live Your Claremont Press.

Globe publisher distributes Q&A

Boston Globe publisher Steve Ainsley has distributed a Q&A inside the Globe in advance of the Boston Newspaper Guild's upcoming July 20 vote on the latest concessions negotiated between the Guild and the New York Times Co. Media Nation obtained a copy earlier today.

Dear Colleagues:

We thought it might be helpful to provide information about the components of the tentative agreement with the Guild, which is scheduled for a ratification vote on July 20th.

We have prepared a short list of Q&A's for those elements that are different from the contract proposal of June 8th.

We also provide a link to the Q&A’s (previously distributed) for those components that have not changed from the June 8th contract proposal.

You'll also find a link to the information about the wage mitigation, which is posted on Compass.

[Compass is an internal system for Globe employees. I do not have the links. — DK]

If you have any additional questions, please let us know.

Thank you.

— Steve

---

Guild Employees Q&A

New Elements of the Contract under Tentative Agreement

Q. What are the new elements of this proposal?

A. The major elements that have changed are outlined below:

• A lower wage reduction: 5.94% vs. 8.388%
• The elimination of retiree health insurance, going forward (post
• 65 supplemental plan only)
• 2 Vacation days and the Birthday holiday will be taken without pay
• A further reduction of 'quid pro quo' for health insurance fund

Note: The last three items above, along with the partial wage mitigation, amount to exactly the savings needed to lower the wage reduction and maintain the $10 million in total savings necessary.

Q. What elements in this proposed agreement have remained the same?

A. Major elements that have remained the same include:

• 2% wage reduction for Tier 2 positions
• Five furlough days per year
• Elimination of overtime unless employee works 40 hours in a week
• Elimination of banked vacation accrual
• Freeze pensions at current levels, and eliminate company’s
• contributions
• Elimination of company’s contributions to 401(k) accounts
• Reduction of 'quid pro quo' payments for health insurance fund as
• provided in the June 8 proposal
• Elimination of tuition reimbursement, eye care, life insurance,
• retiree death benefit
• Modification of the lifetime job guarantee
• 1% profit share program
• Matching wage increase, up to 5%, if management’s 2009 wage cut is restored.

Q. What is the length of this contract?

A. Through the end of 2010.

Q. Date of ratification vote?

A. Monday, July 20, from 8am to 8pm at the Globe.

Q. Why not vote earlier?

A. The Guild’s bylaws require 30 days notice.

Q. What happens to post-65 retirement health benefits?

A. Going forward, all Guild members will not be eligible for retiree heath benefits through the company after age 65. What this means is that at age 65 you become eligible for Medicare and you would need to purchase a Medicare Supplement Plan on your own rather than it being provided by the company. There are many choices available on the market including plans from Blue Cross, Harvard Pilgrim and Tufts. (This is consistent with the change in benefits for managers and exempts instituted in March, 2009.)

Q. How will the unpaid vacation days and birthday holiday be administered?

A. Two vacation days per year will be unpaid. Employees may choose which of their vacation days will be unpaid, but need to schedule them at the beginning of the year. For 2010 they need to be scheduled with your manager by January 30.

For 2009, only 1 vacation day will be unpaid. It would need to be scheduled with your manager by August 15.

Employees are required to take their birthday holiday within the period that’s 2 weeks before or 2 weeks after their birthday. For 2009, only employees with birthdays after the ratification date will not be paid for their birthday holiday. They should schedule the day within the period outlined above.

Scheduling for all vacation and birthday holidays needs to be approved by your manager. In 2010 all unpaid days including furlough days will need to be scheduled by January 30.

Q. When would the pension freeze take effect? I’m close to earning another year of service.

A. The pension freeze will be effective on August 8, if the contract is ratified on July 20th. So, every full-time employee will have earned 1,000 hours this year and therefore another full year of accrual service.

You should have received a notice informing you that the pension plan would be frozen as of August 8th. This is contingent on ratification. There is a requirement under federal law to give employees 45 days advance notice that benefit accruals will stop (a 204(h) notice), which is why the notice was sent out early with knowledge and prior agreement with the Guild.

Lylah Alphonse's response to Brian Mooney

Media Nation has obtained the full text of Boston Globe staff member Lylah Alphonse's open e-mail to Brian Mooney. Alphonse favors approval of the Boston Newspaper Guild's latest deal with the New York Times Co.; Mooney is opposed. Let's get right to it:

To: Brian Mooney
[email addresses removed]

07/08/2009 11:44 AM

Of course it's only marginally better than the one voted down June 8. What on earth were you expecting?

"Rejecting their outlandish demands" sounds great. What are you proposing instead, in order to achieve the $10 Million in savings? In all of the "vote no" emails I've received since June 8, not a single one has offered up a viable solution the $10 Million problem.

The NLRB route is a crapshoot, at best. In Fiscal Year 2008, just 36 percent of unfair labor practice cases (8,100 out of 22,501) filed in the Regional Offices were determined to have merit and warranted the issuance of an unfair labor practice complaint. In Fiscal Year 2008, the NLRB resolved 68 percent of those "meritorious" cases "by withdrawal, dismissal, or closing upon compliance" within 120 days of filing. A total of 76 percent of the "meritorious" cases were resolved within a year of filing. Which means that a quarter of the cases that the NLRB deemed worth pursuing took more than a year to close.

(Source: http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/reports/PAR2008/PAR2008.htm)

A no vote will not postpone layoffs -- a yes vote locks NYT in to the new contract through the end of 2010, a no vote allows them to do whatever they plan to do sooner than that. And of course layoffs are coming. We're printing fewer papers. Ad sales are plummeting -- they dropped nearly 30% in the first quarter of 2009 and are still dropping (source: http://chiefmarketer.com/advertising/print/0610-newspaper-ad-sales-plummet/). We're beefing up Boston.com and Globe reader; more readers get their news online. All of that requires less staff, maybe in the newsroom, definitely in advertising, sales, classified, and printing- and distribution-related departments.

A quick NLRB resolution would take, at best, 3 to 4 months. A quick sale would take 4 to 6 months, judging by previous sales here and elsewhere. It would be easy for the union or for the Globe to drag things out, but the longer this drags out, the easier it is for NYT to turn to other options -- like bankruptcy.

Bottom line: If you think you can get a better job with another company, now is a great time to go for it. But if you plan to stay at the Globe -- or don't think you can land a better job elsewhere -- you're going to have to deal with what NYT is dishing out: a 23% paycut or a package of cuts that seems to get worse with every negotiation.

Your choice.
Lylah M. Alphonse
The Boston Globe
135 Morrissey Blvd.
Boston, MA 02125

Globe staffer rebuts Mooney

The Boston Herald's Jessica Heslam reports that Boston Globe staffer Lylah Alphonse has sent an e-mail around the newsroom rebutting Brian Mooney's latest, and urging her fellow Globies to vote yes on the latest package of concessions on July 20.

If anyone's got Alphonse's entire e-mail, send it along and I'll post it forthwith.

Brian Mooney: Just vote no

Boston Globe political reporter Brian Mooney, an outspoken opponent of the concessions that were voted down last month, is urging yet another no vote — this one on the second deal negotiated by the Boston Newspaper Guild and the New York Times Co.

Adam Reilly has the details, including the full text of Mooney's message to fellow Guild members. The vote takes place on July 20.