WHAT IF THE LOS ANGELES TIMES IS SOLD TO A NEW OWNER?
(Excerpted from video of David Hiller’s remarks to Operations)
The paper may be sold. We recognize that this is something on everyone’s mind. Employees are asking themselves, what does this mean for me? And, what would it mean for my family’s future? These are legitimate questions, and like you, we don’t know all the answers. But I’ll tell you one thing is clear, voting for the Union isn’t the answer.
Regardless of what happens, the
Los Angeles Times is one of the crown jewels of the Tribune Company. Keeping it successful in publishing and printing for many years to come will be the top order of business for any owner. And that means presspersons will be needed. I also don’t see how anyone could run with significantly fewer operations employees, including pressroom employees, than are currently employed. We’ve constantly looked at our staffing levels and feel the current levels are right. We don’t believe another owner could run two plants with fewer pressroom employees.
We know there has been a lot of speculation following the closing of the San Fernando Valley plant, and that Orange County might be next. Well that’s not our plan, and again, we don’t see how that could happen. Maybe someone could shoehorn production into the Oly plant a couple of days a week, but not the Thursday through Sunday editions. And that’s where all the revenue is. As we said, we don’t see this happening either.
And remember this, having unions didn’t stop the
New York Times from announcing it would close its Edison plant to reduce the number of presspersons. Having unions didn’t stop the
San Francisco Chronicle from outsourcing production. In fact, it’s our personal opinion that the
Chronicle’s miserable relationship with its unions was one of the reasons it wanted to outsource. Having a union didn’t stop the recent purchaser of Tribune’s Boston television station from not hiring its union-represented employees, who by the way received a lesser separation package than non-union employees.
So as you can see, having a union or a union contract simply doesn’t stop owners from doing these kinds of things.
Look at what happened when Knight Ridder was sold to McClatchy. Maybe it’s just a coincidence but after the purchase, McClatchy spun off every newspaper that had a union. So now, Dean Singleton, who has a reputation of knowing how to deal with difficult unions, owns the
San Jose Mercury News. And McClatchy has just sold the
Minneapolis Star Tribune, which the
New York Times noted “is also unionized.”
So we don’t see how voting in a union now improves your current situation with a potential new owner. Now we’re not saying that any of the things that we’ve talked about happening at other newspapers will happen here. And, if the Union is voted in, The Times will bargain in good faith. But we have a good thing going and we should keep it going together. We have the best wages and working conditions outside of New York City. We’ve done that without you having to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of union dues. We’ve done it by working together and communicating directly with each other without some third party with their own agenda interfering. And with or without a new owner, we have plans to keep The
Times strong - maybe even adding more products we can print at our great plants like we’ve done with
Hoy.
So, why gamble with your or your family’s future. Learn the facts, visit the Company’s website. Don’t let others decide your future for you. Vote and vote “No.”
But regardless of how you feel about the Union, I hope you will vote on January 4 or 5 at whichever plant and whatever time is most convenient, regardless of where you normally work. And for those of you who are not scheduled to work those days, I hope you will make the extra effort to come in and vote as well.
Posts
