Friday, March 6, 2009

Sacramento Bee Guild members leaning toward a NO vote Friday? (updated)

In comments on the Guild's web site, several Guild members say they will vote NO.

UPDATE: A reader thinks a lot of Guild members who haven't posted on the Guild site will vote YES.
.
.
.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

All a "no" vote does is accelerate the layoff schedule. The guild has no power or influence. There are plenty of very talented and unemployed journalists who would love to have their jobs - even at reduced wages.

Anonymous said...

Increasing the number of layoffs because of a no vote illustrates in the clearest of terms that management is dealing in bad faith. A yes vote places the burden of responsibility for the layoffs squarely on the backs of the union.

This is by design. It is a tactic taught to management in their many negotiating classes.

A yes vote only delays the additional layoffs that will most certainly happen. It doesn't really matter though, because there will be a yes vote as the majority of you would gladly throw your neighbor overboard to delay the inevitable. They are holding a gun to your heads and making you choose who gets the ax. You can participate or not. History tells us you will do whatever it takes to be eaten last.

Anonymous said...

There's no leverage for unions when the economy is this bad. I agree with 1:20 - the toothless Bee guild will vote yes to save their hides for another three months or so. If they vote no, they can count on extinction.

Anonymous said...

Isn't the headline a bit misleading? As I read the comments I see maybe 10 people max who have stated they are voting No. I know that the voting membership of the guild in Sacramento is low but I am guessing that it is more than 20 people so all the comments prove is that a small majority of people who are voting and have stated their opinion on the guild website are voting No, but I am not sure you can make a blanket statement of how the vote will go from that sampling.

I know in advertising alone there are around 100 potential guild members (I am guessing that few of them are members in good standing) but with that said I think it would be foolish to think that you will have less than 50 votes cast. My guess will be 60-80 but I might be optimistic. I haven't been in a covered position in 15 years so I don't know the ins and outs anymore.

Anonymous said...

Section 20 of their contract prohibits a strike, if you can believe that.

SECTION 20 — NO STRIKE/LOCKOUT
20.1 During the term of this Agreement the Guild and its agents will not cause, permit, condone, encourage or sanction and no employee or employees of the Publisher will participate or engage in any strike, slowdown, sick-in, cessation of work, withholding services, work stoppages, picketing, interference with operations of the Publisher or sale or distribution of its products directed against the Publisher at any location. Any employee or employees covered by this Agreement engaging in any such activity shall be subject to immediate discharge as said misconduct shall constitute just cause for discharge under this Agreement. In the event of a strike by another bargaining unit against the Publisher, the Guild shall not encourage the honoring of the other union's picket line, and shall advise its members in writing that honoring such picket lines may lead to permanent replacement.

(I am not an attorney, but I can still read.)

Anonymous said...

...the Guild shall not encourage the honoring of the other union's picket line...

We know they're proud of this one. It's payback time boys and girls. They told you you're time would come, but you didn't believe them.

Anonymous said...

Regarding my comment at 3:01, I believe if you reread it I do not take a position on how people will vote because I do not know.

What I said was stating guild members are leaning towards no might based only on comments on the bee guild board is a bit of a falsehood.

Stating that many will vote yes based on my comments is even a bigger one.

I realize it is a tactic of a biased journalist to take things out of context for headlines etc. But there wasn't anything remotely stating how people will vote, not even speculation, only a simple question. So if you have no more data other than my question I think your update is a completely inaccurate, as inaccurate as the original post stating the vote was going to be no, but at least you have hedged your bets so if they vote either way you were right on top of it, only a tie beats you.

Anonymous said...

Stating that many will vote yes based on my comments is even a bigger one.

---

How presumptuous of you. I don't recall him ever saying that your comment is the one he was referring to. A result of living in the McClatchy bubble is to believe that the sun rises and sets based on your individual written word. Even though at least two comments before yours predicted that the vote would be YES. Thank heaven you sanctimonious turds are going out of business.

Anonymous said...

@9:10 AM not that presumptuous actually. I instead clicked on the link on the front page to see what he was basing it on. That link linked to my comment.

So either he linked to my comment on purpose to highlight that is why he included that item or it was an accident either way the fact that it linked there made it appear as though it was my comment that precipitated his update and for that reason alone I commented.

My initial assumption and why I clicked on the link was that someone else had made mention since I could not fathom how my comment could have been interpreted that way.

Anonymous said...

So it never even occurred to you that he may just have linked to the page your comment was on and just happened to be the last post on that page.

See what I mean? You assumed. Based on the sanctimonious belief that all who read focus entirely on your own assessment of a given situation. I bet you didn't even know that two posts prior to your own had already said the vote would be Yes. It never even crossed your mind, did it?

Anonymous said...

@11:15 AM, I assume nothing instead I direct you to the link, now there are several other articles below mine and you know what the link still goes to my comment. My comment is at the top of the page.

Blogger allows for linking directly to comments. so if you check the link at the time below my comment and compare it to the link in the address in the update you will see they are the same exact link.

As I said earlier either it was just a mistake and he grabbed that link at random or he was pointing directly to it.

I made no comment on this at all until I was sure that the link I was questioning was pointed at my initial comment. As I said earlier I was surprised to find that, because I didn't think my comment would have engendered that response.

Now as to your assertion that it is my "sanctimonious belief that all who read focus entirely on your own assessment of a given situation" In this case when all evidence points to me I have some reason to believe it was focused on me.

So I ask you to check the link on the original update. Then check the link on the time below my comment, I may very well be making a mistake but in my reading they are the same so I think I was within my reason to question it.

McClatchy Watch said...

March 6 7:49 -- I linked to the comments page, which lists every comment. If yours is the top comment then that is what everyone will see when they click the link. You just need to scroll down and you can see every comment.