Here is a nasty, personal attack email sent out by leaders of Newspaper Guild of New York. Always seems as if those yelling mud slinger the loudest are the ones who are actually slinging the mud: Whats Driving Grant? His Friday night rant was the latest move in an increasingly desperate takeover bid On Friday night, Grant Glickson issued an email that pushed his mudslinging campaign to become Guild president even deeper into negative territory. And thats saying something. Grants rant went to an undisclosed list of personal email addresses. So, were issuing our response to some of you whose personal email addresses weve gathered. Our Proven Guild Leaders team has decided not to go negative. Were running on our record, which we think is pretty terrific given the state of the news business. Weve won contracts that are the envy of other Guild leaders. In the past six years, we brought a new sense of openness to our Local, more transparency, member involvement, better communication and free video training. Weve been endorsed by dozens of leading Guild activists from around our Local and around the country. But, when we get smeared, were going to defend ourselves, and when history gets rewritten were going to set it straight. Among Grants rants were that we “buckle and collapse when it comes to the 11th hour negotiations” and that “theres no transparency during negotiations.” In the Times contract talks that concluded about a year ago there was no buckling, no collapsing, and there was total transparency. Ditto for all of our contract negotiations with other employers. Grant should know because he was there, one of about a dozen members of a bargaining committee that also included a number of respected journalists. After a spirited debate, the committee concluded that the settlement, inadequate though it may have seemed to some, was the best deal we were going to get. A few committee members opposed the tentative contract, but not Grant. The settlement also went through a vigorous debate among all Times Guild members. But nearly 600 members voted to approve it by an eight-to-one margin nearly a year ago. A couple of bargaining committee members were among the 64 who voted “no.” But not Grant. He voted for it. Remember, this was a deal that preserved a pension plan that management wanted gone. Guild members are the only Times employees who still have an active plan that guarantees them monthly retirement income for life. It also forced the company for the first time in decades to increase its funding for health care. A vastly improved dental plan also came out of the settlement. So, why is Grant now implicitly disavowing a contract he voted for? For one thing, hes trying to get elected. But there may be more to it than that. You see, Grant wanted a promotion. Right before members voted on the contract, he asked Guild President Bill OMeara to negotiate a pay raise for him, not across the table, but in the kind of non-transparent meeting hes now ranting about. Instead, Bill promptly put the contract to a vote. Would we be having this election if Grant had gotten his raise? Who knows? But consider this: Grant has been a Guild insider for many years, currently serving on the Locals Executive Committee and even trying out as a Guild rep about 13 or 14 years ago (he didnt pass his trial period). If he thought we should be doing more or were doing something wrong, he had years to say so. But he never did. In fact, he never said much at all. Now that hes decided to run for president hes suddenly brimming with “new ideas” and complaints about the way we do things. Most of his “new ideas” and complaints about us are off-the-shelf platforms peddled by consultants – were reactive, not proactive; we dont think outside the box; our thinking is antiquated, his is modern. These are the type of claims made by insurgents who cant find anything wrong with the incumbents theyre trying to oust. Some of his generic claims – youre not getting anything for your dues and your union leaders are overpaid – are straight out of the playbook of anti-union employers who are trying to snuff out union organizing drives. Despite Grants belief that we dont spend enough of the Guilds money, we committed up to $1 million for the campaign to win a contract at The Times. Fortunately, we didnt need most of it. But it was only because of the Guilds healthy $10 million assets – mostly the product of the proceeds from the sale of our old building, and prudent investing and responsible spending – that we could make such a commitment. When you add it all up, Grant and his campaign of new-found generic positions sound more like someone who wants a more secure job and a raise than a dedicated activist with a heartfelt desire to build a better union. And the closer it gets to the Nov. 13 voting deadline, the more desperate he gets. We dont have lawyers and communications consultants working on our campaign. What we do have, unlike Grant, is a broad cross-section of Guild activists from throughout our Local who are running with us on the Proven Guild Leaders slate. We believe in their commitment to the Guild and they believe in our dedication and ability to lead. We hope you do too. We would be honored to serve you for another three-year term. Please vote for the Proven Guild Leaders slate. -- Bill OMeara and Peter Szekely
Posted on: Sun, 03 Nov 2013 03:51:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015