Union: New York Times newsroom managers got raises while our wages were frozen
“The Mobilization Committee” at the New York Times tells guild members this afternoon that newsroom managers have been nicely rewarded.
During the two and a half years (and counting) that our wages have been frozen, the base pay for newsroom managers increased by 6 percent (3% in 2011, 3% in 2012).
We have spoken with a number of exempt managers who, during that same time period, received bonuses that came to more than 45% of their pay (above 30% in 2011, and more than 12% in 2012). These figures come from mid-level people who advise that there may be some variation on the size of the bonus, depending on a person’s rank and department.
These are our colleagues. They earned that money.
So have we.
Read the memo after the jump.
From:
Date: Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:34 PM
Subject: What are Fair Wages and Benefits?
To:
Colleagues:
Throughout our mobilization, we have sent one message: we want fair wages and benefits. We will accept nothing less.
The reason hundreds of loyal New York Times staff members have demonstrated — and will continue to do so — is that the company seems to have no concept of what that means, at least when it comes to us.
So as mediation continues, let us provide some perspective, using the company’s own proposals and record.
Times negotiators offer us 1% as of the day of ratification with no retroactive money for the past 18 months — a period when our pay scales have been frozen.
You might think that the company has no notion of fairness, but newly available figures show that they actually do. Sometimes.
During the two and a half years (and counting) that our wages have been frozen, the base pay for newsroom managers increased by 6 percent (3% in 2011, 3% in 2012).
We have spoken with a number of exempt managers who, during that same time period, received bonuses that came to more than 45% of their pay (above 30% in 2011, and more than 12% in 2012). These figures come from mid-level people who advise that there may be some variation on the size of the bonus, depending on a person’s rank and department.
These are our colleagues. They earned that money.
So have we.
Over the entire span of a five year contract, the Times is offering us a total of 3.5% — just about what non-Guild folks received for one year. That is not only a severe pay cut, as anyone who has taken high school economics will tell you. It is an insult.
The company offers us a sham profit-sharing plan that amounts to 1% most years, and 2% in very good years — not bonuses approaching one-third of salary.
We have more than earned fair wages and benefits. We will accept nothing less.
Believe us.
In Solidarity,
The Mobilization Committee
