GOOD UNION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NEWSPAPER GUILD AND HUDSON NEWS
(Hudson News is the company that runs the newsstands in NYC.) 2008-2012
Excerpts from 45-page contract. To see the full contract, contact one of your colleagues or blog admin.
“Section 1 -- Minimum Salaries
The following minimum hourly rates for each job group listed shall be in effect during the term of this Agreement...Effective upon ratification, all current employees shall be slotted into the appropriate wage level commensurate with their length of service with Hudson News. However, no employee shall suffer any reduction in salary or benefits as a result of putting this Agreement into effect.” (pg. 10)
“Section 2 -- General Wage Increases
On the effective date of the general wage increase in each year of this contract, each employee shall receive the general wage increase for that year, or the ‘step up’ increase due based upon his or her experience level for their applicable job group, whichever is higher. All wage increases due under this section shall be applied to the employee’s actual weekly base salary, inclusive of any merit pay or other salary increases granted by Hudson News.” (pg. 14)
“Section 5 -- No Pay Cuts
There shall be no pay cuts during the term of this agreement.” (pg. 14)
“Section 6 -- Merit Pay Increases
The Salaries established in this Agreement are minimums only. They do not keep an employee from seeking or Hudson News from putting into effect increases above the minimums to recognize individual merit...Under no circumstances shall merit increases be revoked.” (pg. 14)
“Section 11 -- Longevity Increases
Upon ratification employees who have attained 5 years of service or more shall receive the appropriate increase (which shall be included in their rate for all contractual purposes) as per the schedule below.” (pg. 15)
“Section 1 -- Named Holidays & Floating Holidays
An employee shall be granted holiday pay as specified in this article, for each of the following six named holidays and a day off for each floating holiday that occurs during his or her service with Hudson News: New Year’s Day, Labor Day, Memorial Day, Thanksgiving Day, Independence Day, Christmas Day, and 1 floating holiday.” (pg. 18)
“Section 1 -- Length of Vacation
The following annual vacation with pay shall be granted … to each employee … as follows:
Continuous Service:
10 years or more - 4 weeks
5 years or more but less than 10 years -- 3 weeks
2 years or more but less than 5 years -- 2 weeks
7 months or more but less than 23 years -- 1 week” (pg. 19)
Health Insurance
“Employee contributions for the plan(s) shall be according to the following schedule:
Less than 1 year -- Employee contribution of 25%
1 year but less than 3 years -- Employee contribution of 20%
3 years or more -- Employee contribution of 15%” (pg. 21)
Sick Leave
“Hudson news shall pay sick leave to each full-time employee at his or her normal base pay rate who is absent due to illness, injury or disability...
Less than 2 years -- 5 paid sick days per year
2 years or more -- 5 paid sick days per year
5 years or more -- 6 paid sick days per year
10 years or more -- 7 paid sick days per year” (pg. 22)
“Regular part-time employees who work at least twenty (20) hours per week shall be entitled to pro-rata sick pay based on their normal work schedule and the schedule in sub-section a above.” (pg. 22)
The full contract also includes additional sections of employee benefits, including leaves of absence for pregnancy, bereavement, etc.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Thursday, May 24, 2012
KAPLAN’S “COLLECTIVE BARGAINING” FLYER – FACT-CHECKED
We did some googling, and found some interesting information related to the "Collective Bargaining" flyer from management.
We had to look through some documents on a site called DOCSTOC, which unfortunately wants you to pay to download or print the documents, but if you follow the links below, you can just read them in your browser.
----
The first link is fun - it's an almost identical copy of the Kaplan “collective bargaining” flyer, but from some other employer and against some other union (the CNA...?) - the same out-of-context quotations from labor "law" are used! And as you will see below, more than two companies have used these same quotations.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/89365961/The-C
The second link is the real meat and potatoes - it is the text of a 2008 decision by an administrative law judge, James M. Kennedy, recommending that a decertification election be overturned.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6812551/OConnor-Woods32-RD-1536JD%28SF%29-17-08James-M-Kennedy041508
Basically the union representing workers in a residential community for the elderly had been in contract negotiations for a year (2006) with the management. After failing to reach agreement, some of the workers petitioned to decertify the union. The decertification election was held in late 2007, and the union narrowly lost (i.e. slightly more than half of the workers voted to decertify).
The union appealed on multiple grounds, and this judge examined some of those grounds. To cut to the chase, he found that management had engaged in unlawfully misleading and intimidating behavior before the decertification election, and he recommended that a fresh decert election be held (scroll down to the last two pages, 15 and 16, to see this).
The part that we are interested in is on pages 3-5. You should read it all, but in summary, the judge describes a company flyer that was handed out to the workers with THE SAME QUOTATIONS as Kaplan is now using (this is in 2007 remember, who knows how many years this stuff has been being recycled??)... the judge breaks down how these quotations are taken out of context to deliberately mislead.
Like I said, read it yourself, but here's a summary, in the order the judge explains them, with Kaplan's quotations for easy reference:
(1) "in the give-and-take of bargaining a union might give up insurance”, etc - (La-Z-Boy, Inc.) - the quotation from the La-Z-Boy case is presented as if it is from the NLRB board's ruling in that case, as if it is a statement of law that was decided by that case. It is in fact, a quotation from the case's judge DESCRIBING WHAT A LA-Z-BOY MANAGER HAD SAID TO THEIR EMPLOYEES!! Notice how the double-meaning of "might" with the implication of "may" (as in permission) is used to mislead us as to what a union "might" do... So imagine that, someone in Kaplan management says in a weekly meeting, “the union might ask for your first-born child in exchange for dues check off”, then later we all go to court over the result of the election, then during the case the judge quotes the manager’s comment about first-born children, then the next thing you know… future corporations faced with employees considering unionization will be citing the well-known case of Kaplan vs Newspaper Guild: “the union might ask for your first-born child! IT’S IN THE LAW!!!”
(2) "Collective bargaining is potentially hazardous" etc. - (Coach and Equipment Sales Corp) - this one is a doozy, because the quotation is from a case in which the NLRB ordered a second election because the company in question had violated the law by strongly hinting to its workers that if a union came in, the company would make sure that no increases in benefits would be produced by the negotiations. The quotation is actually from the judge’s analysis of the company’s bad behavior. Here is the full quotation:
“Respondent” here means the company, Coach and Equipment Sales Corp, and “these statements” refer to statements made by Coach and Equipment to their employees. So do you see what is going on here? This statement is a sharp criticism from a NLRB judge of a company’s behavior in overstating the possible downsides of collective bargaining, and indeed of threatening to not bargain in good faith; but multiple corporations, including Kaplan, choose to selectively quote from this passage to try to suggest that the board’s decision in this case was that “collective bargaining is potentially hazardous”. In fact, the board’s decision in this case was that the company acted illegally and they ordered a second election!
(By the way, to give Kaplan some credit, it could be worse. This is the quote that the management of the elderly residential community lifted from this same passage: “Collective bargaining could not result in any increases in benefits for the employees and would probably result in decreased benefits, in short, that unionization, if it had any effect at all, would… result in worse benefits, not better.” Unbelievable, right? You can see yet another example of this in the first link above, where the company butchered this same passage to deceptively make their point.)
(3) “The U.S. Government and the NLRB do not guarantee employees…” (Bendix Corp, 6th Circuit Appeals) – this one is interesting, and judge James Kennedy goes into detail about how the quotation is not contextualized and in some situations could be considered threatening.
However, if you look at the case yourself - http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=5&xmldoc=1968541400F2d141_1509.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985&SizeDisp=7 – you will see that the quotation is, at least, an accurate representation of what was said in that decision. The problem is that it isn’t relevant to us at Kaplan!
This 1968 decision overturned a NLRB decision to hold a second election at Bendix after the union lost the first one. It seems that both the company and the union behaved badly – the company promised better wages and conditions if the union were defeated, and the union promised that conditions could only get better if the workers unionized. That’s why that language is in that decision – the appeals court states very clearly that neither the US Government nor the NLRB guarantee workers’ current conditions. But the reason they are stating that is to explain their decision to overturn the union’s second (successful) election. That union had been making the false claims since before the first election, but they still lost the first time.
The point is, the Newspaper Guild has never claimed that nothing can change for the worse if they are chosen to negotiate on Kaplan teachers’ behalf. What they did say, which is entirely different, is that a general contract stipulates minimum salaries, not maximum ones. In other words, if a company wishes to offer an individual employee, or indeed all of its employees, more than is specified in the contract, they are free to do so, and the employee is free to accept!
This is completely different from speculating about what may or may not be “on the table” in a contract negotiation. It’s entirely possible that workers, or management, might wish to “trade away” a current benefit or condition in exchange for a different one.
What Kaplan seems to want everyone to forget is that, if the negotiated contract is unsatisfactory to most teachers, or indeed if no agreement can be reached on a contract at all, then nothing changes. So if the union’s and teachers’ negotiating skills are so poor that teachers stand to “lose all benefits and get none of those we wish to change”, as it were, then when it comes time to vote on that contract, it will be defeated, and the union will go away.
Currently our management seems to be hell-bent on making us forget the fact that, just as the union has to first be chosen by a majority of voting teachers to even earn the right to negotiate, whatever contract that finally emerges from negotiations also has to be voted on and approved by a majority of the voting teachers. In the event that the Guild is elected to represent us, our primary task will be to make sure that the various interests of all teachers are represented in the negotiations, so that a contract emerges that is acceptable to everyone (including management). And if such a contract cannot be achieved, then it won’t be voted in and we can all go back to negotiating with the company on an individual basis.
We had to look through some documents on a site called DOCSTOC, which unfortunately wants you to pay to download or print the documents, but if you follow the links below, you can just read them in your browser.
----
The first link is fun - it's an almost identical copy of the Kaplan “collective bargaining” flyer, but from some other employer and against some other union (the CNA...?) - the same out-of-context quotations from labor "law" are used! And as you will see below, more than two companies have used these same quotations.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/89365961/The-C
The second link is the real meat and potatoes - it is the text of a 2008 decision by an administrative law judge, James M. Kennedy, recommending that a decertification election be overturned.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6812551/OConnor-Woods32-RD-1536JD%28SF%29-17-08James-M-Kennedy041508
Basically the union representing workers in a residential community for the elderly had been in contract negotiations for a year (2006) with the management. After failing to reach agreement, some of the workers petitioned to decertify the union. The decertification election was held in late 2007, and the union narrowly lost (i.e. slightly more than half of the workers voted to decertify).
The union appealed on multiple grounds, and this judge examined some of those grounds. To cut to the chase, he found that management had engaged in unlawfully misleading and intimidating behavior before the decertification election, and he recommended that a fresh decert election be held (scroll down to the last two pages, 15 and 16, to see this).
The part that we are interested in is on pages 3-5. You should read it all, but in summary, the judge describes a company flyer that was handed out to the workers with THE SAME QUOTATIONS as Kaplan is now using (this is in 2007 remember, who knows how many years this stuff has been being recycled??)... the judge breaks down how these quotations are taken out of context to deliberately mislead.
Like I said, read it yourself, but here's a summary, in the order the judge explains them, with Kaplan's quotations for easy reference:
(1) "in the give-and-take of bargaining a union might give up insurance”, etc - (La-Z-Boy, Inc.) - the quotation from the La-Z-Boy case is presented as if it is from the NLRB board's ruling in that case, as if it is a statement of law that was decided by that case. It is in fact, a quotation from the case's judge DESCRIBING WHAT A LA-Z-BOY MANAGER HAD SAID TO THEIR EMPLOYEES!! Notice how the double-meaning of "might" with the implication of "may" (as in permission) is used to mislead us as to what a union "might" do... So imagine that, someone in Kaplan management says in a weekly meeting, “the union might ask for your first-born child in exchange for dues check off”, then later we all go to court over the result of the election, then during the case the judge quotes the manager’s comment about first-born children, then the next thing you know… future corporations faced with employees considering unionization will be citing the well-known case of Kaplan vs Newspaper Guild: “the union might ask for your first-born child! IT’S IN THE LAW!!!”
(2) "Collective bargaining is potentially hazardous" etc. - (Coach and Equipment Sales Corp) - this one is a doozy, because the quotation is from a case in which the NLRB ordered a second election because the company in question had violated the law by strongly hinting to its workers that if a union came in, the company would make sure that no increases in benefits would be produced by the negotiations. The quotation is actually from the judge’s analysis of the company’s bad behavior. Here is the full quotation:
“Taken together, these statements do not simply confine themselves to the legitimate message that collective bargaining is potentially hazardous for employees and that as a result of such negotiations employees might possible wind up with less benefits after unionization than before. Rather, these statements can only be taken as meaning that Respondent intended to adopt a bargaining stance designed to insure that collective bargaining could not result in any increases in benefits for the employees and would probably result in decreased benefits – in short, that unionization, if it had any effect at all, would, because of Respondent’s intransigence, result in worse benefits, not better.”
“Respondent” here means the company, Coach and Equipment Sales Corp, and “these statements” refer to statements made by Coach and Equipment to their employees. So do you see what is going on here? This statement is a sharp criticism from a NLRB judge of a company’s behavior in overstating the possible downsides of collective bargaining, and indeed of threatening to not bargain in good faith; but multiple corporations, including Kaplan, choose to selectively quote from this passage to try to suggest that the board’s decision in this case was that “collective bargaining is potentially hazardous”. In fact, the board’s decision in this case was that the company acted illegally and they ordered a second election!
(By the way, to give Kaplan some credit, it could be worse. This is the quote that the management of the elderly residential community lifted from this same passage: “Collective bargaining could not result in any increases in benefits for the employees and would probably result in decreased benefits, in short, that unionization, if it had any effect at all, would… result in worse benefits, not better.” Unbelievable, right? You can see yet another example of this in the first link above, where the company butchered this same passage to deceptively make their point.)
(3) “The U.S. Government and the NLRB do not guarantee employees…” (Bendix Corp, 6th Circuit Appeals) – this one is interesting, and judge James Kennedy goes into detail about how the quotation is not contextualized and in some situations could be considered threatening.
However, if you look at the case yourself - http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=5&xmldoc=1968541400F2d141_1509.xml&docbase=CSLWAR1-1950-1985&SizeDisp=7 – you will see that the quotation is, at least, an accurate representation of what was said in that decision. The problem is that it isn’t relevant to us at Kaplan!
This 1968 decision overturned a NLRB decision to hold a second election at Bendix after the union lost the first one. It seems that both the company and the union behaved badly – the company promised better wages and conditions if the union were defeated, and the union promised that conditions could only get better if the workers unionized. That’s why that language is in that decision – the appeals court states very clearly that neither the US Government nor the NLRB guarantee workers’ current conditions. But the reason they are stating that is to explain their decision to overturn the union’s second (successful) election. That union had been making the false claims since before the first election, but they still lost the first time.
The point is, the Newspaper Guild has never claimed that nothing can change for the worse if they are chosen to negotiate on Kaplan teachers’ behalf. What they did say, which is entirely different, is that a general contract stipulates minimum salaries, not maximum ones. In other words, if a company wishes to offer an individual employee, or indeed all of its employees, more than is specified in the contract, they are free to do so, and the employee is free to accept!
This is completely different from speculating about what may or may not be “on the table” in a contract negotiation. It’s entirely possible that workers, or management, might wish to “trade away” a current benefit or condition in exchange for a different one.
What Kaplan seems to want everyone to forget is that, if the negotiated contract is unsatisfactory to most teachers, or indeed if no agreement can be reached on a contract at all, then nothing changes. So if the union’s and teachers’ negotiating skills are so poor that teachers stand to “lose all benefits and get none of those we wish to change”, as it were, then when it comes time to vote on that contract, it will be defeated, and the union will go away.
Currently our management seems to be hell-bent on making us forget the fact that, just as the union has to first be chosen by a majority of voting teachers to even earn the right to negotiate, whatever contract that finally emerges from negotiations also has to be voted on and approved by a majority of the voting teachers. In the event that the Guild is elected to represent us, our primary task will be to make sure that the various interests of all teachers are represented in the negotiations, so that a contract emerges that is acceptable to everyone (including management). And if such a contract cannot be achieved, then it won’t be voted in and we can all go back to negotiating with the company on an individual basis.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
My Life in Unions (one teacher's perspective)
Hi,
I work at ESB and I would like to share my experience working in unions. I have worked with three different unions AFSCME, AFL-CIO, and DC 37. Each time, this union was already in place at the job I was hired at. I had absolutely no choice or vote to decide if I was a union member. Taking the job meant paying the union dues, just like I had to pay part of my salary to taxes, social security, etc.
Here's what the union did for me:
1. Within six months of joining AFSCME, I was given a raise. They had been negotiating the raise before I got there, and I was able to receive it because I was a union member.
2. The same thing happened when I joined AFL-CIO ... I remember joking about it, saying that as soon as I join unions everyone gets raises.
3. DC 37 were in negotiations for a long time. Over a year. During this time there was no tension between employees and employers. Elected union representatives were involved in the negotiations, not just lawyers. Pretty much, to the average employee nothing was different during this time. When the negotiation finally went through we got a sizable raise. Not only did we get a raise, but it was a RETROACTIVE RAISE starting from the date when negotiations began. Let me just explain this again because it took me a few times to understand how awesome this was. We got a raise, and it was effective from A YEAR PRIOR. So that means I got a raise, and a $1000+ bonus for all that retroactive time when the negotiations were taking place. I have no idea if this is typical, but it was amazing.
4. DC 37 fought to put something in our contract protecting employees from being forced to work every Saturday. It had been practice that managers never scheduled themselves on Saturdays, and if they didn't like you, you would find yourself working every Saturday. The union fought to have something put in the contract that an employee could not work more than 2 Saturdays in a row, and could not work more than 3 Saturdays in a month.
Can the Newspaper Guild get us better wages and better working conditions, just like the above-mentioned unions? No one knows until they actually try to negotiate! But why wouldn't you want to try?
I work at ESB and I would like to share my experience working in unions. I have worked with three different unions AFSCME, AFL-CIO, and DC 37. Each time, this union was already in place at the job I was hired at. I had absolutely no choice or vote to decide if I was a union member. Taking the job meant paying the union dues, just like I had to pay part of my salary to taxes, social security, etc.
Here's what the union did for me:
1. Within six months of joining AFSCME, I was given a raise. They had been negotiating the raise before I got there, and I was able to receive it because I was a union member.
2. The same thing happened when I joined AFL-CIO ... I remember joking about it, saying that as soon as I join unions everyone gets raises.
3. DC 37 were in negotiations for a long time. Over a year. During this time there was no tension between employees and employers. Elected union representatives were involved in the negotiations, not just lawyers. Pretty much, to the average employee nothing was different during this time. When the negotiation finally went through we got a sizable raise. Not only did we get a raise, but it was a RETROACTIVE RAISE starting from the date when negotiations began. Let me just explain this again because it took me a few times to understand how awesome this was. We got a raise, and it was effective from A YEAR PRIOR. So that means I got a raise, and a $1000+ bonus for all that retroactive time when the negotiations were taking place. I have no idea if this is typical, but it was amazing.
4. DC 37 fought to put something in our contract protecting employees from being forced to work every Saturday. It had been practice that managers never scheduled themselves on Saturdays, and if they didn't like you, you would find yourself working every Saturday. The union fought to have something put in the contract that an employee could not work more than 2 Saturdays in a row, and could not work more than 3 Saturdays in a month.
Can the Newspaper Guild get us better wages and better working conditions, just like the above-mentioned unions? No one knows until they actually try to negotiate! But why wouldn't you want to try?
Thursday, May 17, 2012
"Do you really want to do this?"
You may have also received a scary flyer about money being thrown away ... yes, the Guild costs money. People don't just spend hours and hours of their time, not to mention hours and hours of legal fees, to negotiate on your behalf. The Guild charges a fee of 1.386% of your salary. Yes, that is money that doesn't go directly into your pocket. But think of all the things that money could go to:
And of course we wouldn't even pay any dues until a contract was agreed upon by both sides. So to answer the question at hand, yeah I really want to do this.
- increased wages
- higher pay rates for non-teaching hours
- better health benefits
- paid holidays (did you know the students pay for classes even on days Kaplan is closed?)
- paid sick time
- better working conditions
- job security (ie Kaplan would have to show just cause to fire a teacher)
And of course we wouldn't even pay any dues until a contract was agreed upon by both sides. So to answer the question at hand, yeah I really want to do this.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Why is the Union Election So Important?
If you were at work today, then you might have received a day-glo orange flyer about the union election. Some of the information there is accurate, true, and even useful. Some of the information is not.
"If you don't vote, someone else is making an important decision for you." This is absolutely true! Everyone should vote! Whether you want to vote "yes" or vote "no," everyone should vote. The union is a democratic organization in which we the teachers vote on issues that are important to us. And the decision of whether or not to have the union is no different. If all 90 eligible teachers vote, and the majority vote against the union, then so be it. It's only fair. All we can hope is that everyone who votes takes the time to listen to both sides before evaluating what the best decision is.
"Only the union would bargain for you." This quote however, is not so true. The Newspaper Guild would bargain for us teachers based on what we the teachers ask them to bargain for. The contract would set minimums for wages, benefits, working conditions, job security, etc. And yes, even if you aren't in favor of the union, this contract will apply to you. And once the contract is approved by both sides, you would pay dues. However, if you want to bargain on your own behalf for additional salary increases or additional benefits you are free to do so. The contract negotiated by the Guild would only set up minimums.
"If you don't vote, someone else is making an important decision for you." This is absolutely true! Everyone should vote! Whether you want to vote "yes" or vote "no," everyone should vote. The union is a democratic organization in which we the teachers vote on issues that are important to us. And the decision of whether or not to have the union is no different. If all 90 eligible teachers vote, and the majority vote against the union, then so be it. It's only fair. All we can hope is that everyone who votes takes the time to listen to both sides before evaluating what the best decision is.
"Only the union would bargain for you." This quote however, is not so true. The Newspaper Guild would bargain for us teachers based on what we the teachers ask them to bargain for. The contract would set minimums for wages, benefits, working conditions, job security, etc. And yes, even if you aren't in favor of the union, this contract will apply to you. And once the contract is approved by both sides, you would pay dues. However, if you want to bargain on your own behalf for additional salary increases or additional benefits you are free to do so. The contract negotiated by the Guild would only set up minimums.
Why I'm Not Afraid of a Union
1. The
Newspaper Guild does not charge us any money until a union contract has been
made, approved by a vote from the teachers, and approved by Kaplan. So, if
Kaplan refuses to accept our proposed contract, nobody pays any dues, and our
financial situation stays the way it is now.
2. A
union contract will only set required minimums, not a universal set of
salaries/benefits for all employees. So, if I get paid $21.30 per hour now, and
the union sets a minimum of, say, $20.00 per hour, I will still get $21.30 per
hour. The same is true for insurance, paid sick days, etc.
3. The
“union officers” and “bargaining committee” will consist of Kaplan ESL teachers
elected democratically by the teachers at all 3 centers. Those who are elected
will collect information about what the teachers want in a contract, via online
survey. Without a union, teachers are not currently being consulted as part of
the decision-making process for setting pay, benefits, or terms of employment.
I’ve been here 4 years and have seen no changes in this regard.
4. The
union has no initiation fee. The union dues are 1.3846% of pay, when we get a
paycheck only, and only if there’s a contract. I’m willing to pay 1.3846% of my
wage to get a decent wage for prep-time, paid sick days, a better and more affordable
health care plan, and job security, to name a few.
5. As
I understand it, a union will give teachers more of a voice, and Kaplan
corporate less of a monopoly on power. This is why upper management has asked
supervisors to inundate us with ani-union rhetoric.
6. Because
we are currently “at will” workers of Kaplan and can be fired without just and
sufficient cause, we are all in an environment of fear that we will lose our
jobs if we vocalize support for a union, thus all the secrecy leading up to
this point. This situation is undemocratic. The existence of a union will
require accountability from management so that everyone is free to voice their
opinions on our working conditions without fear of losing our jobs.
But don’t take my word for it. Go talk to the guild and read
this report.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
A Vote Has Been Scheduled!
Guild Election Set for June 7
for Kaplan ESL Instructors
for Kaplan ESL Instructors
A vote for Newspaper Guild representation has been scheduled for June 7, 2012. Polling stations will be set up at all three Kaplan International locations from 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
If you are available, you are welcome to be present when the votes are counted at about 3:30 p.m. at Empire State Building.
This is a secret-ballot election run by the U.S. National Labor Relations Board. Ballots will be counted by an NLRB agent. No one will ever see your vote.
Polling locations are as follows:
Empire State Building
11:30 a.m.-2:30 p.m.
350 5th Avenue, Conference Room A, 63rd Floor, New York, NY
East Village
11:30 a.m.-2:30 p.m.
16 Cooper Square, Auditorium, Ground Floor, New York, NY
Midtown
11:30 a.m.-2:30 p.m.
131 West 56th Street, Room 602, 6th Floor, New York, NY
If you have any questions, please call Anthony Napoli (212) 730-1508 or Nastaran Mohit (914) 557-6408 at the Newspaper Guild of New York.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
A Message from the Guild
Greetings! June Guild election likely; Find out more at meeting Wednesday
Dear Kaplan ESL Teachers,
Well, what do you know, before we could even say how do you do, your managers have already started saying things about us, and not very nice things either.
We’re the Newspaper Guild of New York, a union that represents more than 2,800 employees at 18 companies, mostly in the news business. We’re here because a group of your colleagues asked us to be the workplace representative of Kaplan ESL teachers in New York City. The idea caught on pretty quickly, because a large majority of teachers have already signed cards designating us to represent them (if you haven’t already signed a card, you’re still welcome to do so).
Because so many teachers want us to represent them, we asked the U.S. National Labor Relations Board to schedule an election. That process is now getting sorted out.
ELECTION - The NLRB will conduct an election in which you’ll get to vote on whether you want the Guild to represent you. We expect the election will be held in early June -- at a time between classes -- at each of your three work locations (Midtown, Empire State Building andEast Village). We’ll have details soon.
Between now and election day, you’ll be reading and hearing a lot of things about what it means to be represented by us, versus what it means to remain unrepresented.
YOU CAN'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ
The first thing you should know is that you can’t believe everything you’re going to hear and read. And we’re not just saying that because we don’t like having bad things said about us. We’re saying it because it’s true. The National Labor Relations Act doesn't require companies or unions to be truthful when they communicate with employees. There are certain things that employers are not supposed to say at times like this, but plain old fibs aren’t among them.
The first thing you should know is that you can’t believe everything you’re going to hear and read. And we’re not just saying that because we don’t like having bad things said about us. We’re saying it because it’s true. The National Labor Relations Act doesn't require companies or unions to be truthful when they communicate with employees. There are certain things that employers are not supposed to say at times like this, but plain old fibs aren’t among them.
So, since it’s not against the law for Kaplan or the Guild to spew out half-truths or untruths, you should scrutinize everything you hear and read very carefully. Kaplan is being advised by a very sophisticated law firm, Jones Day, which is also helping Wal-Mart with its Mexican troubles. For our part, the Guild will always be open and upfront with you. But you should find that out for yourselves.
Between now and election day, we’ll explain how having a union can help make your lives better, just the way it’s made life better for millions of American workers. We’ll be doing this in meetings, emails and other forums. And we’ll answer any questions you have. We hope you’ll take the time to learn all you can, because you’re standing on the brink of a tremendous professional opportunity.
MEETING – You’re invited to meet us this Wednesday, May 9 at 6 p.m. at our office in Times Square, 1501 Broadway Suite 708 (between 43 and 44th Streets). We’ll tell you about ourselves and what you can expect in the coming weeks and months. We know you may be meetinged out by now after your sit-downs with management. We’ll try to keep it short. And we won’t take attendance.
Now, to set the record straight after Friday’s email from David Jones:
Mr. Jones says you will be bound by any agreement reached between the Guild and Kaplan.
What he doesn’t tell you is that Guild contracts set minimum salaries. Nothing stops Guild members from individually negotiating more pay than the contractual minimums (nothing, that is, except their bosses). Many Guild members at many different employers make more than their contractual minimums. What members can’t do, however, is negotiate individual medical or benefit plans. Could they do that if they didn't have a union? Well, technically yes, but good luck with that.
Mr. Jones says the Guild requires all of its members to pay a certain amount of dues.
What he doesn't tell you is that, well, that's simply not true. Most of our contracts require dues payments, but there are some exceptions, including the one with Newsweek magazine, which was formerly owned by the Washington Post Co., Kaplan's parent. That said, we believe a universal dues-paying requirement is the fairest way to go, and contracts that include it are better than those that don't. But we don't make that decision alone. A contract that requires dues payments must first be accepted by you in a pre-bargaining vote, agreed to by Kaplan, approved by your colleagues on the bargaining committee and ratified by you. Dues, by the way, are 1.3846 percent of your base earnings, and you only pay when you get a paycheck.
Mr. Jones says that at the end of the negotiating process, you could get “the same, more, or less than what you have now.”
What he doesn't tell you is that the odds are you will do better with collective bargaining than going it alone. Median weekly earnings for all union members are 29 percent higher than for nonunion workers ($938 vs. $729), according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Union members are also far more likely to have better health care and retirement plans then their nonunion counterparts. Every employer insists that the pay and working conditions it offers are driven by its business needs and the market. But some of them are paying 29 percent more, and those are the ones whose workers bargain collectively. Does having a union guarantee that you'll do better? No, but given the odds, doesn't it make sense to go with the percentages?
Mr. Jones says Kaplan cannot generally change teachers’ wages, benefits or other working conditions during organizing or while an election is pending.
What he doesn't tell you is that Kaplan must maintain the status quo, whatever it may be, during this period and – if the teachers vote in favor of the Guild – until a contract is reached. “Status quo” includes any regular practice, such as a regular practice of awarding raises or bonuses at certain times of the year. Such practices must continue. Mr. Jones also said Kaplan created a full-time teacher position and changed summer schedules in response to teacher requests and needs. We asked around and no one knows anything about the summer schedule change. As for full-time teacher positions, we know of only four (not counting head teachers), and management never asked you if that's what you wanted. Meanwhile, there are part-time teachers who are working 40 hours a week because of doubled-up schedules, but they aren't getting full-time benefits.
Mr. Jones says that if you don’t like the contract the Guild negotiates, you're stuck with us for at least a year.
What he doesn't tell you is that if the Guild is rejected by a majority of teachers in the upcoming election, you would be barred from having another union election for at least a year, even if Kaplan cuts your pay, which it would be free to do without a contract. If Kaplan teachers choose the Guild and no contract is negotiated in the following year, the Guild can be decertified at any time after that, if that is the will of the majority. If a contract is negotiated it will be up to you to decide if you want it. It's not a contract unless it gets majority backing. That's what we mean by democracy in the workplace. Now, when was the last time you got to vote on anything that affected your working life at Kaplan?
-The Newspaper Guild of New York
Bill O’Meara, President
Peter Szekely, Secretary-Treasurer
Anthony Napoli, Local Representative
Nastaran Mohit, Organizer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)