Boston Seventh Strangest City in U.S.
Sunday Happenings
Sports Redux: B's, Bergeron Get 2 More From Road
Gordon Willis, the Man Who Plays Peekaboo
In a big new twist, the Boston Globe is proposing a 23% wage cut for its employees to meet the New York Times Company's demands for financial concessions. 23 percent is a huge amount: it cuts a $50k salary down to $38.5, still livable but not quite so comfy. Is this what it'll take to keep a Boston paper owned by New York?
Would You Want Your Wages Cut by 23%? That's What the Globe Proposes for the Boston Newspaper Guild
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookComments (5) [rss]
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Tips
Contribute
Latest Tip:
It's time for cyclists and pedestrians to take back the streets.
[more]
would I want to cut my wages by 23%?
No.
Would I prefer it over losing my job in a horrid economy? Yes.
Would I ever expect to be given a "guaranteed for life" job like some union workers have?
No.
Would I be willing to give up that guaranteed job in order to help my co-workers and fellow union members?
Yes.
good answers. & i don't agree with the lifetime job, by any means, either. if you want that, try academia & get tenure. ;)
I'm not entirely sure that many Bostonist readers (or angry commentators on the Globe and Herald websites, for that matter) actually understand what the Union's "Lifetime Job Guarantee" entails. I think the name is a little dramatic, and misleading.
You can view the guarantee here.
Make that here: http://www.bgol.org/contract/2001/02/supplemental_agreement_job_gua.html
Thanks for that link. I'll be the first to admit that growing up in the south I have very few real world experiences working with unions. However I still think that the idea is a bad one. In my former life I was the district manager for a computer retailer so I do understand upper management's outlook on business. Most likely the people with guaranteed jobs will have been there the longest and therefore will command more pay in most organizations. As a business manager, I'd prefer the option of say I can either:
1) Lay off 10 older, high cost employees
or
2) Lay off 25 newer, lower cost employees with the same cost savings.
My company never had to make that choice but we did come close before and our goal was to retain the maximum number of employees we could so we opted for 3) do everything to minimize costs except layoffs. If we would have had to cut people though, we would have looked hardest at option 1.
Then again, if my boss offered me a lifetime job today I'd probably take it. :)