New York Times Was Just Joking About That Whole 'Closing The Boston Globe' Thing
Those pesky unions, always asking for reasonable pay for their employees, decent working conditions, continued employment and the like. Well, the New York Times Company found a way to deal with the scalawags at the Boston Globe: threaten to fire 'em all and shut down their place of business.
The Times Company is seeking to save $20 million off the money-losing Globe operation, which the Times owns, but unions balked at agreeing to more cuts. So the Times threatened to close the Globe within 60 days, several unions cried uncle and the Times postponed the shutdown.
The struggle isn't over quite yet though, reports Wall Street Journal-owned MarketWatch:
The newspaper said, however (it) has yet to resolve talks with its largest union at the Globe, the Boston Newspaper Guild, which represents more than 600 newsroom, advertising and business office workers.
Regardless of the outcome, smug New Yorkers can take comfort in the fact that they can shutter that little Beantown rag whenever they see fit. Heck, when you can't beat 'em at baseball, you've got to cling to something, right?
New York Times Postpones Boston Globe Closure [MarketWatch]
(Photo: BILLBINS)
Post a comment
Comments:
Is the price for that paper really $8.25?
Make newspapers non-profits so that the people can keep their jobs and we can still have newspapers. Also maybe a newspaper subscription can become a tax deduction?
They lost a ton of money. What manager in his right mind wouldn't try to reduce costs.
When dealing with unions, the only way to get them back to the table is to make the situation as dire as possible. The Times just made it clear to the unions that they can deal or they can go home.
Fueled by the auto industry collapse, I think that society is becoming quite fed up with unions anyway. I know I'm tired of seeing towns and companies ruined by moronic union shenanigans.
I don't know anything about this issue with the Boston Globe - but at this point I'd be more than happy to vote to make unions illegal across the board.
"Those pesky unions" - OK. According to NPR this morning, the point of contention which led to that remark was lifetime job guarantees in the Boston office. I'm sorry, that's just unreasonable; I don't care what other concessions were made those jobs have to be competitive like every position in a capitalist economy.
While NYT's threat of closure was just a ruse, it illustrates a very real potential outcome across all industries if the greedy, lazy unions don't step up and support the corporations. "Good faith" needs to be (to turn a phrase) taken seriously. If corporations close or outsource all or part of their operations due to the inflexibility of unions, union members won't even have jobs left to complain about.
Wow, I guess it's official now: Consumerist is a blatant union shill.
Why can't the unions be satisfied with destroying the domestic auto industry? Now they want to destroy newspapers too?
@YouDidWhatNow?:
Some of the union shenanigans:
Shows on Broadway must employ a certain number of musicians, even if the production score doesn't call for them. This leads to some artists coming to the show with their violin/trumpet/cello and sitting quietly in the pit for every show.
A city official for some city put a loose manhole cover back in place. The union filed a grievance because doing that was some other guy's job. Forget the safety issue. That manhole should have been left uncovered for hours/days/weeks until the 'guy' made it there.
At a factory where my friend works, the technology for a certain process has improved over the last dozen or so years. Now, this process requires a press of a button, a reload of the machine after 2 hours (which takes about 15 minutes), and a restart. Union rules force the factory to still employ a full person to run this machine. The guy comes into work at 7, fills the hopper, pushes the button, then goes and sits in the break room for 1:45. Repeat at 9, 11, and 1.
@winstonthorne: that's not exactly true....While yes, they're contentious about the lifetime job guarantees, it only applies to the employees (in this particular union) that were working for The Globe when it was bought out by the Times. The Times made that promise, basically saying that these guys could have a job and the Times wouldn't squeeze them out and bring in their own people. It was part of the original deal.
While, yes, having lifetime job security would be a nice thing, it's really on the Times' head for making a deal like this if they can't stick with it.
And, to be fair, the union (apparently) found the $20 million in cutbacks that the Times wanted, so the actual money wasn't the problem.
@Mike Masoncupp: That's a price tag from Mac's, a Canadian-based chain of convenience stores. More specifically, judging by the other papers in the background, it's from a store in Quebec, selling the New England edition of the paper, which means it was shipped cross-border, expedited. So, between the base cost of the paper (which is probably $5 just on its own for the huge thick Sunday edition), the added cost of shipping it, and the currency conversion, $8.25 sounds about right.
Still far more than I'd be interested in paying, of course. But Canadians are used to paying 30-50% more for all forms of printed media - not just imported newspapers, but books and magazines too.
Another reason that the major papers may be struggling is basic supply and demand. Their editorial bent (supply) is not what the readers demand.
I have no problem with the major papers stating that they have a left of center bias. That's fine. Just don't look me in the eye and say no we don't.
"Regardless of the outcome, smug New Yorkers can take comfort in the fact that they can shutter that little Beantown rag whenever they see fit. Heck, when you can't beat 'em at baseball, you've got to cling to something, right?"
Smug new Yorkers paid $1.1 billion for the Globe and Worcester Telegraph and now that investment is essentially worthless.
The NYT is trying to bolster the Globe so that they can sell it. They blew their chance to unload it a few years ago for $600 million, and the dead-weight at the Globe knows that no one will buy the paper as long as the Jordan/Taylor holdovers and other on the "life list" remain. It happened at the Herald in '82, and now it's coming their way. This isn't a about "decent working conditions, continued employment and the like" when you're talking about writers who only submit stories every 6 months or security guards making $45 an hour. Cutting the tenured dead-weight is permitted under the union contract in the event of a business crisis. One way or another, they're gone. Either the union agrees, or the paper is shuttered. The dead-weight has chosen to kick and scream their way out because of course, who's going to hire them? Another newspaper? lol
Newspapers are dead. Good riddance.
I literally laughed out loud the other morning when I heard that the NYT was having difficulties dealing with a union and was threatening to shut down the Boston Globe. Oh, sweet, sweet Karma!
@Acolyte: Sounds like a swell idea. And maybe we could have a Congressional Sub-Committee oversee their operations, too.
@Acolyte: I honestly think that's precisely how all of this -- and by "this" I don't mean just the Globe, but the entire collapse of the industry -- is going to play out. I do want there to be established organizations out there doing quality, serious in-depth investigative reporting, because I strongly believe such a thing is necessary. And several papers -- the MY Times, the WaPo, the Globe -- have, in the past, done some really great things. But the trajectory they're all on now just is NOT tenable. The reporting and writing are getting consistently worse, even at the big, reputable papers, and they're losing money hand over fist.
@j-o-h-n: Both of you should realize that unions made the middle class. They got us the minimum wage, the 5 day work week and health insurance. It's funny that the disparity between the heads of companies and general workers continues grow larger every year and some people still want to blame unions for destroying companies. The executives of companies are destroying companies. Bad decision making at the top is to blame. Not paying people fair wages.
@buckfutt: It seems the blatant anti-union sentiments of the commenters is balancing out whatever bias you have detected.
The headline doesn't match the contents of the article
By "decent working conditions" are you referring to the guaranteed lifetime jobs that 190 Globe workers have? Seems reasonable that a struggling industry would try to renegotiate deals like that to save the jobs of thousands of others.
I know, it's cool to be pro-union, anti-business. But life isn't always that black-and-white.
They weren't joking. Might want to fix the headline.
The thing that grates beyond bearing is that, if the crazy over-leveraging that took place in the past 5-odd years were erased - along with the accompanying debt loads - most of these papers would be doing fine. Not crazy ROI, but fine. Not that disintermediation wouldn't be a concern, but one that the media would be able to chart a course through. But these crazy debt servicing payments is what is crushing many of these media conglomerates.
Yet another example of how keeping competition thriving is better.
I thought unions were useful until my wife became Dir.of Ops. at a new job where they had to keep all the union workers, and her life has been hell. They have this mindset of "us vs. them" instead of working together as a team. Every time she asks them to do what is ontheir job descriptions, they go running to the union to file a grievance. They are the biggest bunch of whining babies. Her dishwashers make $17/hr. Unions have long outlived their usefullness!
@thezone: Thank you. Although I believe every worker deserves proper representation, unions in some industries at least somewhat level the playing field in a country with no form of single payer or universal health care (and insurance companies that will gleefully deny you private coverage for many preexisting conditions).
Do anti-union folks believe that heinous labor conditions throughout the history of the US would have magically worked themselves out? Do they believe corporations are institutions of goodwill by default?
@thezone: Unions had their time. They set up the baseline for us to work off of. Laws are in place, etc. Unions are doing nothing but guarantee unrealistic security and pay and are dragging companies down. Why do you think everyone is so gung ho about shipping manufacturing jobs overseas? Nobody in their right minds should be able to expect to make $60k a year for screwing pieces of machines together. I work in a company where probably 50% of the workforce unionized. The company is bleeding money everywhere keeping the union happy, whether it's ridiculous benefits, keeping bad workers on because they have to follow all the right steps and technicalities to fire them, and the unbelievable amount of money they pay them for their unskilled work...it's just ridiculous. Once unions ran out of things like child labor and the like to fight against, they turned on the companies and said they were treating employees badly and are now hell bent on making them pay. I tell you what, I'm in a non union position, I make good money and I have great benefits. I get raises based on performance, not mandated amounts regardless of how good/bad of an employee I am. All without a union.
I understand what you're saying and I don't mean to come off as a jerk if that's how it sounded - yes the unions got us a lot of the things we have now. But now we're to the point where they have nothing lef tto fight for other than forcing companies to guarantee jobs and pay exhorbitent amounts of money for basic skills jobs.
@thezone:
Paying someone upwards of $80 per hour (add up the laughable amount of perks and benefits on top of the stated hourly wage and you'll arrive at numbers this outrageous) to bolt on a steering wheel to a Malibu is not a fair wage, my friend.
Unions ceased their legitimacy long, long ago. They used to fight for honest wages, reasonable hours to become employees rather than slaves. They already accomplished those things in the mid 1900s.
A disparity between the heads of companies and the general workers is deserved.
@Lokys: Dang. Sunday editions of the seattle times are max like $3.50, even if you're buying it way out in the boondocks where my parents live.
I think the unions should call the New York Times' bluff.
And if NYT really does go through with their threat, not only do they look like jerks, but all those suddenly unemployed people are perfect employees for the new Boston newspaper sure to spring up from the ashes of the Globe.
@downwithmonstercable: ahh just fully realized everything you were saying in your post. I retract my previous statement
Newspapers. Is that like a Blog?
Seems the only smugness here is coming from Phil, who worships at the alter of Union Holiness.
The Globe lost $85 MILLION last year. IN DOLLARS, AMERICAN.
As with the auto industry, I can't for the life of me understand how these Unions feel as if they have something to bargain with. They are lowering their insane labor demands (LIFETIME EMPLOYMENT GAURANTEE?) because the NYT threatened to close the place down, but even saving $20 million still leaves you operating at a $65 million loss. How hard is it to understand the term "unsustainable"?
I agree with the argument that Unions are irreplacable in protecting workers rights as they have done through the last century, but there is a point that they have gone past the point of simpy "protecting" and instead are driving entire industries in to bankruptcy.
Don't even get me started on the Teachers Unions.
I couldn't agree more. For further proof see this article:
Why Is It So Difficult To Fire Bad Teachers?
[www.latimes.com]
False dichotomy. I think just about everyone believes there should be standards for labor. (no child labor, minimum wage, etc.) However, unions have swung the pendulum too far the other way. Many unions get benefits far beyond even what highly educated professionals get. They also insist on numerous, onerous workplace rules that unnecessarily lower productivity and protect bad employees who should be let go. There is a middle ground here - unions can still make good wages with benefits while being reasonable when it comes to working with management. I would say wage decreases or some layoffs for a company on the brink of going out of business is not unreasonable.
@Borax-Johnson: Back in the old days, papers came right out and said who they were affiliated with.
Then came the " journalistic ethics" movement and it became vogue to claim independence and hide your true politics.
@thezone:
Not to nitpick, but corporate provided health insurance came from companies trying to attract workers while getting around wage controls after WWII, not from unions.
@nakedscience: crap or not I think the point was that people aren't buying what the newspapers are selling, which is true.
Why they aren't buying is open to interpretation.
I wish the Kansas City Red Star would just go away as well. Those idiots have never met a tax increase they don't love and are just a bunch of cockgobblers for the Democrat party anyway. They don't even hide it anymore.
@Murph1908: Management shenanigans:
Despite accepting billions of tax dollars in write-offs and direct research aid, refuse to develop smaller, more fuel efficient cars or hybrids. Spend hundreds of millions of marketing dollars convincing US public that 12 cupholders is the most important characteristic of typical family. Sell oversized SUVs and Hummers in spite of finite petroleum reserves.
Then when bottom falls out of behemoth vehicle market, extort just shy of a hundred billion dollars from the US government, then blame the unions for decades of mismanagement.
Snicker up sleeve when ill-informed rubes fall for the blame-shift.
> Quite a lot worse for us than when a Manhattan cellist sits idle, huh?
@robotrevolution: Right! And that new newspaper won't have any of these onerous union contracts to deal with, because there is no way that a new company could get off the ground with them.
Really, do the delivery truck union, the press operator union, and the mailer union (not kidding, read references) need to be protected? Yes it sucks that the standard of work for a middle-class living has been raised, but how long can we expect "stuffs ads into Sunday newspaper" to be a valid middle-class career?
@Trai_Dep:
True for some newspapers, but not in this case. The Globe is losing money even BEFORE taking into account interest payments. In other words, even if it were a company with zero debt (and no need to buy presses, trucks, etc), it STILL would be losing money.
@Trai_Dep: talk about strawmen, jesus Burning man would be proud.
refuse to develop smaller, more fuel efficient cars or hybrids.
They didn't "refuse to", people weren't buying them. The Ford Explorer was the #1 sold car in the US during the 90's. It wasn't "refusal" it was what the public wanted to buy. Ford saw the writing on the wall and came up with Hybrids and more fuel efficient cars sooner than other American car companies, and whaddyaknow? They are surviving without tax-payer money.
Sell oversized SUVs and Hummers in spite of finite petroleum reserves.
You could say the same thing about Semi-trucks, or any other combustion engine, but you would also sound as stupid as your comment.
Then when bottom falls out of behemoth vehicle market, extort just shy of a hundred billion dollars from the US government, then blame the unions for decades of mismanagement.
Explain why Ford didn't accept the "hundreds of billions". Then retract the "hundreds of billions" because this isn't true either. It wasn't "Hundreds of billions".
Snicker up sleeve when ill-informed rubes fall for the blame-shift.
So you think it's reasonable that someone who screws on the steering wheel to a Chrysler deserves $50/ hour with benefits?
Hilarious.
I'm sorry why all the hate towards New Yorkers? WTF did we do to the author of this piece of crap article?
So...they weren't joking at all. They just extended the deadline and might still close the Boston Globe. The headline kind of raised my hopes for the Globe.