Posted 6:21 AM by steve

Let's delve into the Newspaper Guild's rejection of the Boston Globe contract offer...

By refusing to accept the pay and benefit cuts, the union is effectively saying one of two things: (1) they don't believe Globe management will actually follow through with its threats to impose harsher cuts, or (2) they don't care if Globe management does follow through and cut positions and salary, the employees are making a principled stand of some kind and are willing to lose their jobs and/or a good portion of their pay.

Looking first at the second, it is hard to understand such a choice. Standing up for principle is a lot easier when the costs of doing so aren't as high as they are now. It's not as if newspaper jobs are going begging right now, it isn't as if the employees have a lot of employment choices. I doubt many of them have independent sources of money or spouses who make enough money to support the family.

As for the second scenario, that the employees believe the Globe is bluffing, if they're right, then the employees would have been stupid to accept the contract - why volunteer to take less money than the boss is willing to pay? But, if it isn't the case, and Globe management will follow through on their threats, then the employees have ensured that there will be fewer of them and those who remain will earn less than would have been the case had the employees voted to ratify the contract.

So... are the Globe employees justified in thinking management won't follow through?

Their belief rests on the theory that management won't dare gut - or close down - the Globe, that the paper has such a history and place in journalism that management wouldn't dare risk the wrath of being tagged as the guys who thrashed such a hallowed institution.

And there lies their mistake. They continue to think that what they do enjoys some kind of exemption from the rules of business that govern the way businesses operate. They still haven't come to grips with the reality that the newspaper business is no different than any other business: they need to bring in more money than they pay out, that newspaper owners are willing to take only so much money out of their pocket for the prestige and privilege of owning a paper, and the prestige of owning a newspaper is a lot less than it once was.

It is possible that the NYT, the Globe's owners, will be willing to 'invest' even more money subsidizing the Globe... but my guess is that the NYT, suffering financially itself, would prefer that its money go to subsidize the NYT and not the paper in Boston.

And if that's the case, the 277 Globe employees who voted to turn down the offer are going to be real unpopular...