Los Angeles Times Pressmens 20 Year Club: Los Angeles Times Downsizing Pressrooms

Monday, January 19, 2009

Los Angeles Times Downsizing Pressrooms

Huggins 1-19-09 Cost Reduction

Publish at Scribd or explore others: local 140n pressroom

18 comments:

Anonymous said...: wow ed is it true some of us are going to get laid off; 3:44 AM
Edward Padgett said...: Yes Danny,

It is true. We do not have the exact number at this time, but I would estimate between 30 and 40 colleagues will be leaving the newspaper by the 15th of March.

Stay tuned for updates.; 3:52 AM
morethanubrgn4 said...: SO lets see we are paying 60-70 bucks a month for??. We LOST shift differential, LOST retirement contributions, created a two tier wage system, allows part time work, screwy overtime and holiday rules now, management rights are pretty much universal, and we are having more layoffs. And the last paragraph of the contract appears to give either side the option of opting out with a 60 day written notice. Not to mention the bustouts are toast. Isnt this just swell, we got a great deal!!; 4:07 AM
Old OC said...: Welcome to the real world!!!!! We were all told what was going to happen but a majority of us choose not to believe those that knew but rather those that had their own agenda! To the majority that voted for the union, enjoy all your new benefits, I know that your "union leadership" will. I’m sure that your “union leadership” are really appreciative of the $150,000.00 dollars that you will send to the them, from your pay checks, in 2009.; 1:11 PM
Kanani said...: *sigh*; 2:53 PM
Unknown said...: You're lucky to have a union. Shortly before your union vote, one of your VPs stated that $70K/year pressmen should be making no more than $40K/year, and he scoffed at your "Save our trade" mantra. He bragged that he could train people hired off of the street to be better pressmen that what he was seeing at the Times.

Without a union, you all would have seen a paycut along with layoffs. Why? Lower labor costs would allow the Times to come in with a lower bid for some of these outsourced printing jobs like NYT and the Register. And, as many of us know, there are a lot of pressmen who aren't worth the money they are paid.

I'm sorry to hear that some people are losing their jobs; however, all of us saw this coming long, long ago and chose to ride it out anyway.

Happy trails.; 3:07 PM
Wolf said...: What Idiots. Some people would rather make $0 dollars (layoffs) than to take a pay cut or make the necessary changes in order to get more work. I guess not having a job makes more sense than keeping the presses running while making labor affordable to make the ENTIRE Company profitable. Way to go union.; 10:27 AM
Unknown said...: moe said,
"Without a union, you all would have seen a paycut along with layoffs"

Moe,
We have already taken a paycut thanks to the union! No real raise, no shift differential, changed overtime rules, no retirement contributions, benefit costs have went up along with all the other departments, and union dues to top it all off. These changes are going to cost the average pressman thousands of dollars per year in lost income. I guess it would be worth it if there was any real security in the contract, but there isn't, pressmen are still going to be laid off in the very near future. In fact, the only security mentioned in the contract is "union security", the right of the union to be the sole representative of the pressmen!
And furthermore, how many non-union represented business units in the Tribune family have taken a pay cut?

Wolf said,
"What Idiots. Some people would rather make $0 dollars (layoffs) than to take a pay cut"

Wolf,
Why don't you take a pay cut? Most of us pressmen work for a living, unlike yourself, we don't get to spend the majority of our day sitting behind a desk or hanging out in the cafeteria. If you think the pressmen taking a pay cut is going to make the entire company profitable than you're dumber than you look.; 11:11 AM
morethanubrgn4 said...: Maybe it is time to start a deauthorization campaign if the dues are too high. This NLRB provision leaves the contract in full force but strips the union security clause from the contract. Joining the union or paying dues would no longer be mandatory. http://www.nrtw.org/d/deauth.htm; 3:23 PM
morethanubrgn4 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3:26 PM
Unknown said...: Yes, James, you are losing money, but it is my opinion that you would have lost much more if you had left your fate in the hands of Newton and Zell. Their strategy has been to try to get you to decertify by making unionization look and sound as if it were a foolish answer to a non-problem. And, it follows that they wouldn't cut pay in other non-union departments while they were trying to get you to vote your own union out because there is the risk of those departments unionizing, and it would solidify the reason for having a union in the pressroom.

There is no doubt that it is a bad situation either way: Keep the union and endure the wrath of the Times managers; or, decertify the union and rely on the goodwill of Zell and Newton?

A true dilemma, considering that pressman was such a lucrative job at the Times for so many years. I'm sorry that it has come to this. (And, to make matters worse, you have a hand-full of contemptible supervisors who have forgotten from whence they came.)

Keep your union.; 6:06 PM
Unknown said...: Moe,
Do you think Zell is afraid of the less than 250 pressmen at one of his many properties?

Do you really believe Zell has not cut the wages of the thousands of other employees of the Tribune properties because he is afraid of angering 250 pressman?

Do you really think it's good business sense to pay someone to get you less than what you used to have?

Do you think anybody in the other departments would be foolish enough to unionize after seeing the contract we're stuck with?

Are you even a pressman?; 7:04 PM
Unknown said...: Maybe you're not aware that LAT pressmen and other LAT production employees make much more than other production employees within the Tribune system. It's not the entire Tribune production system that is targeted for wage reductions, it's just the overly costly LAT production system.

Anyway, union or no union they are going to reduce production costs. So, you're cooked either way. If you had no union, you would have taken a paycut. With the union in place, they'll just keep cutting the bottom guys until it is necessary to hire people at the second tier rate.

Yeah, I was a pressman, but I foresaw this mess years ago. I got off my self-satisfied ass and actually did something with my life.

I always hoped for the best when I was there, but in the pressroom it has always been everyone for themselves. Today, in other places, you can read about people taking wage cuts so that everyone can stay on and work. No such brotherhood in the LAT pressroom. Viva senority. Viva you. Screw the bottom guys. Screw the LAT. Isn't that the mantra of the pressroom?; 8:23 PM
Unknown said...: Moe said,
"Yeah, I was a pressman, but I foresaw this mess years ago. I got off my self-satisfied ass and actually did something with my life."

Good for you sir, I applaud your astute foresight.

I do value your input, but is this really your argument, your point to make, do you have a vested interest in this debate? I think not, after all you were smarter than us and did something with your life. Maybe it's time to move on emotionally, enjoy your great new life, and leave this debate to those of us who chose to stick it out here in the pressroom, to those of us who have to live with this contract, and more importantly, to those of us who are facing this lay off.

And yes, I am aware that we make more money than the Chicago Tribune pressmen, we haven't been unionized as long as them. Give it time, I'm sure our union will even things out.

I do agree with you on this point, union or no union, production costs will be reduced. Why pay union dues if it's going to happen anyway?; 9:01 PM
Unknown said...: Very funny. Move on emotionally. No, I think that I'll stick around to see what happens and comment here as I see fit.

Yeah, my comment about making something out of my life was heavy-handed, and I do apologize. There are plenty of fine people in production, and I hate to see them faced with this crisis of declining business leading to an erosion of job security, real wages, and benefits.

I'm not an oracle, but it wasn't hard to see the trend beginning with declining ad revenues in the middle '90s, progressing to decreases in the LAT production workforce during the last 15 years, the sale of the company to the Tribune, subscription drop-offs, editorial layoffs, and then the appearance of the Grave Dancer. On top of that, business analysts have been predicting the death of newspapers for at least 20 years.

Again, faced with all those signs of decline in the business, I think you are fortunate that you voted union when you did. You guys work for a premium wage and need a union to protect your interests until there is nothing more to protect.; 10:35 PM
Unknown said...: Moe said,
"I think you are fortunate that you voted union when you did."

Yes, and we are also very fortunate to have a smart ex-employee like yourself to decide what is best for those of us still working in the pressroom.

But seriously Moe, this is not the same pressroom you remember, you really have to experience it first hand before declaring yourself an expert on what is best for those of us still working there.; 9:22 PM
Wolf said...: James, Whats up dude? You said
"Wolf,
Why don't you take a pay cut?"
I did in 2003, it was a 23% paycut. I can show you the HR paperwork to back that up. What have you done?

You also said:
"Most of us pressmen work for a living, unlike yourself, we don't get to spend the majority of our day sitting behind a desk or hanging out in the cafeteria."

So if you sit in the reel room most of the day, does that make you a non worker? The fact that I take a lunch like everyone else is normal, what is not normal is that you know how often I go, I'm flatered by the fact that you take the time to care enough about me, to see what I do, and how often I go to the cafe. LOL. Have a nice day.; 9:40 AM
Unknown said...: Come on wolf, you took a pay cut? So you're saying you had the same job code and your base pay was lowered?

Would it be more accurate to say you were:

A) Reclassified
B) Demoted
or
C) Your job was eliminated and you had to take a lower paying position to stay in your department

Are any of the above a better description of your "pay cut"?; 9:23 PM