Toronto Star union breaks from bargaining tradition
Contract talks at the Toronto Star, which has four unions negotiating seven contracts, are typically an arduous process that takes a good six months to complete. In the last round of bargaining at the end of 2004, the talks were tougher than usual, as issues on the table included moving sales staff to a salary-based pay structure and containing benefit costs all around.
As full as the agenda already was, there were also important changes to address for the production staff, said Alan Bower, director of labour relations and the chief negotiator at the newspaper.
Technology was changing staffing requirements in the pressroom. And pay levels for mailers and inserters in the mailroom were more than double industry norms. Had those issues been brought into collective bargaining, which the four unions were doing jointly, progress on any of the talks would have been impossible, said Bower.
Instead, he approached the union representing pressroom workers, platemakers and mailroom workers to signal the company’s wish to revisit the production issues during the term of the contract.
“It’s unrealistic to use a historic process that is deadline-driven like collective bargaining to bring about infrastructure or transformational change all in one round of bargaining,” said Bower.
From the union’s point of view, the writing was on the wall. The company laid out the options it was considering, which included layoffs and outsourcing production.
“Had we gone into negotiations at the end of 2007 we would most certainly be on strike with what was going to be on the table. It would be nasty and it would be ugly, no doubt about that,” said Tom Donnelly, executive vice-president of Local 100M of the Graphics Communications Conference/International Brotherhood of Teamsters (GCC/IBT).
The result was what Bower coined a “living agreement,” underpinned by a letter of intent both sides signed that allowed for talks to continue throughout the term of the current contract. The agreement effectively opens up an opportunity during the term of the contract to address production issues. These talks were to cover stipulations on how many people were needed to man the press, job security for platemakers who were in danger of being replaced by computers and pay levels in the mailroom.
The letter of intent did not specify when in the term of the contract the issues were to be addressed, said Bower. However, within a few months after the company and the union signed the letter of intent, the Star implemented its discretionary right not to replace people on the press who were absent because they were on a sick leave or a bereavement leave.
Donnelly said because of the company’s decision to exercise that discretion, the union had to sit down and talk about staffing provisions in the pressroom.
“We went to the publisher and to Alan Bower and said, ‘Look, we’re willing to sit down and discuss how we could do these things, jointly,’” said Donnelly.
To start the talks off, both sides sat down for presentations on the state of the industry. Although the company’s vice-president of finance delivered one presentation and the Teamsters’ director of the newspaper, magazine and electronic media workers’ division delivered the other, they both made the same point. The company was under tremendous pressure, exerted both by the Internet and by a local newspaper market crowded with free dailies.
As a result of those talks between the Toronto Star and the GCC/IBT, a two-tiered wage and benefits structure was brought in for both the platemakers and mailroom workers. For new hires in the mailroom, the hourly wage would be $13.50 to $15.50, with no premiums paid for Sunday shifts, a significant drop from the $32.73 per hour for current mailers and $24.14 per hour for current inserters, who are paid double time for Sunday shifts.
“When we did those presentations, we demonstrated to the union that we were about 200 per cent higher in our rate of pay than the lowest competitor in our geographic environment, and 100 per cent higher than the next competitor. That’s why we had to make the change we did,” said Bower.
As for the pressroom, the union agreed to the company’s request to pare down staffing levels. By 2008, instead of having six people working on a small print order requiring one or two reel stands, for example, the company would only have to schedule four people. On a larger print order requiring 12 reel stands running, the company would need to schedule eight people instead of 10.
The company also agreed on a voluntary severance for all three groups, the most lucrative being that offered to the pressroom workers of three weeks for every year worked to a maximum of 100 weeks, plus a lump sum of four weeks’ pay. Platemakers received a more flexible severance provision, including job retraining and an option of continued training, salary continuance or a lump-sum payment.
What the union also received in return was a “me-too” letter, which effectively means it gets whatever wage increases and changes to benefits or pensions that the other unions negotiate in the next contract talks at the end of 2007. And as a measure to prolong labour peace, both sides agreed to have the current terms extended to 2011.
The agreement, in Bower’s view, struck a balance between making the company competitive and recognizing the people who helped build the company. Rolling back wages for new mailroom workers, for one thing, would allow the company to hire more staff and bring in commercial work from other publications.
“The way this was done was respectful. It did very little harm to incumbent staff who helped build the company. But it set a completely different framework for new hires, who will know the proposition when they come in. That’s quite different from saying, ‘You’ve worked here 20 years and now I want you to drop $20 off your hourly rate of pay.’”
Gord Sova, editor of CLV Reports, newsletters that track collective bargaining, said it’s uncommon to see such drastic changes to contracts take place outside collective bargaining. What’s more common are letters of agreement allowing for both sides to address small issues that come up during the term of a collective agreement.
“Economically, the company had to do something, and if the union didn’t agree to these changes, they would have had to do something more drastic, with a worse effect on both the union and the company,” said Sova.
For his part, Donnelly said he has been receiving quite a bit of criticism from the other three unions that represent the newspaper workers. But he defended the agreement as one that protects his members’ interest in the long run.
“I feel what I did was the right thing. I wouldn’t want it to be my legacy that I took my members in the street when that could have been avoided. I’ll put them on the street if I feel it was a good fight. This wasn’t the fight — not with the state of the newspaper industry being what it is.”
As full as the agenda already was, there were also important changes to address for the production staff, said Alan Bower, director of labour relations and the chief negotiator at the newspaper.
Technology was changing staffing requirements in the pressroom. And pay levels for mailers and inserters in the mailroom were more than double industry norms. Had those issues been brought into collective bargaining, which the four unions were doing jointly, progress on any of the talks would have been impossible, said Bower.
Instead, he approached the union representing pressroom workers, platemakers and mailroom workers to signal the company’s wish to revisit the production issues during the term of the contract.
“It’s unrealistic to use a historic process that is deadline-driven like collective bargaining to bring about infrastructure or transformational change all in one round of bargaining,” said Bower.
From the union’s point of view, the writing was on the wall. The company laid out the options it was considering, which included layoffs and outsourcing production.
“Had we gone into negotiations at the end of 2007 we would most certainly be on strike with what was going to be on the table. It would be nasty and it would be ugly, no doubt about that,” said Tom Donnelly, executive vice-president of Local 100M of the Graphics Communications Conference/International Brotherhood of Teamsters (GCC/IBT).
The result was what Bower coined a “living agreement,” underpinned by a letter of intent both sides signed that allowed for talks to continue throughout the term of the current contract. The agreement effectively opens up an opportunity during the term of the contract to address production issues. These talks were to cover stipulations on how many people were needed to man the press, job security for platemakers who were in danger of being replaced by computers and pay levels in the mailroom.
The letter of intent did not specify when in the term of the contract the issues were to be addressed, said Bower. However, within a few months after the company and the union signed the letter of intent, the Star implemented its discretionary right not to replace people on the press who were absent because they were on a sick leave or a bereavement leave.
Donnelly said because of the company’s decision to exercise that discretion, the union had to sit down and talk about staffing provisions in the pressroom.
“We went to the publisher and to Alan Bower and said, ‘Look, we’re willing to sit down and discuss how we could do these things, jointly,’” said Donnelly.
To start the talks off, both sides sat down for presentations on the state of the industry. Although the company’s vice-president of finance delivered one presentation and the Teamsters’ director of the newspaper, magazine and electronic media workers’ division delivered the other, they both made the same point. The company was under tremendous pressure, exerted both by the Internet and by a local newspaper market crowded with free dailies.
As a result of those talks between the Toronto Star and the GCC/IBT, a two-tiered wage and benefits structure was brought in for both the platemakers and mailroom workers. For new hires in the mailroom, the hourly wage would be $13.50 to $15.50, with no premiums paid for Sunday shifts, a significant drop from the $32.73 per hour for current mailers and $24.14 per hour for current inserters, who are paid double time for Sunday shifts.
“When we did those presentations, we demonstrated to the union that we were about 200 per cent higher in our rate of pay than the lowest competitor in our geographic environment, and 100 per cent higher than the next competitor. That’s why we had to make the change we did,” said Bower.
As for the pressroom, the union agreed to the company’s request to pare down staffing levels. By 2008, instead of having six people working on a small print order requiring one or two reel stands, for example, the company would only have to schedule four people. On a larger print order requiring 12 reel stands running, the company would need to schedule eight people instead of 10.
The company also agreed on a voluntary severance for all three groups, the most lucrative being that offered to the pressroom workers of three weeks for every year worked to a maximum of 100 weeks, plus a lump sum of four weeks’ pay. Platemakers received a more flexible severance provision, including job retraining and an option of continued training, salary continuance or a lump-sum payment.
What the union also received in return was a “me-too” letter, which effectively means it gets whatever wage increases and changes to benefits or pensions that the other unions negotiate in the next contract talks at the end of 2007. And as a measure to prolong labour peace, both sides agreed to have the current terms extended to 2011.
The agreement, in Bower’s view, struck a balance between making the company competitive and recognizing the people who helped build the company. Rolling back wages for new mailroom workers, for one thing, would allow the company to hire more staff and bring in commercial work from other publications.
“The way this was done was respectful. It did very little harm to incumbent staff who helped build the company. But it set a completely different framework for new hires, who will know the proposition when they come in. That’s quite different from saying, ‘You’ve worked here 20 years and now I want you to drop $20 off your hourly rate of pay.’”
Gord Sova, editor of CLV Reports, newsletters that track collective bargaining, said it’s uncommon to see such drastic changes to contracts take place outside collective bargaining. What’s more common are letters of agreement allowing for both sides to address small issues that come up during the term of a collective agreement.
“Economically, the company had to do something, and if the union didn’t agree to these changes, they would have had to do something more drastic, with a worse effect on both the union and the company,” said Sova.
For his part, Donnelly said he has been receiving quite a bit of criticism from the other three unions that represent the newspaper workers. But he defended the agreement as one that protects his members’ interest in the long run.
“I feel what I did was the right thing. I wouldn’t want it to be my legacy that I took my members in the street when that could have been avoided. I’ll put them on the street if I feel it was a good fight. This wasn’t the fight — not with the state of the newspaper industry being what it is.”
