More on the Gannett Settlement
Exile briefly touched upon this briefly. We both wrote this up at the same time but exile clicked publish first so I’ll add some unique points.
Recall that we started this conversation here over a year ago when I attended a swearing in ceremony and saw this sign. That post generated serious debate in the comments which generated a second post. The overall point of the second post was that the requirements of the workers and company don’t have to be mutually exclusive.
I also asked Steve Orr, President of the Newspaper Guild, for a comment - specifically if the Newspaper Guild was truly satisfied. His response.
We’re pleased the process ended with a binding contract. There are many things in the agreement that we’re unhappy with and that don’t serve our members as well as they should. But there are also protections and benefits that we fought 16 years to protect. In the end, we made the decision that was better to have an imperfect contract than no contract at all.
I think that makes sense. I’ve asked Steve and he is welcome to comment here or send me an email on what specifically they don’t like but I’ll leave that up to Mr. Orr.
Look - Over 16 years without a settlement and something is better than nothing a binding contract for a set period of time could be a good thing. Let’s hope that it won’t take another 16 years to settle on a contract after the current one expires in 2 years.
Related posts:
[...] We followed up with the Gannett settlement, [...]