You are on page 1of 15

Guild Debate

Nov. 15, 2010

New Direction Slate


Ray Pitlyk for President
Ken Crowe for Secretary

Stay Strong Slate


Tim O‟Brien for President
Mark Hempstead for Secretary

Opening Statements

Ken: Hi my name is Ken Crowe. I‟m a reporter. I‟m running for Secretary on the New
Direction slate because we definitely need a new direction. We need leadership. We need
to make decisions. We‟ve got a lot of tough ones. Briefly, my background. I‟m a past
president. I‟ve been a First Vice President, unit chair, member of the RA, shop steward, a
delegate alternate to both the TNG and CWA conventions. I‟ve seen a lot in my time at
the Times Union since I came here in 84. One thing I know about is leadership. I‟m one
of two recipients from this local of Guild International prize for outstanding local
leadership and I know a good leader when I see one and that is Ray Pitlyk standing here
to my right. We have a lot of work to do. We can‟t hide behind legal decisions, waiting
for a legal decision. We have to use that as a tool as International said. Ray Pitlyk. People
know Ray. He‟s always been around the plant. He spent 13 years roughly as chief
steward. He was honored by our local for his work, cause he goes above and beyond the
duty of what a chief steward does. He does far more than most members do. Ray, I hand
it off to you.

Ray: In January of this year, Jim Schaufenbil was at an executive board meeting to
discuss how to move ahead on the contract issue, the dues check-off case and the unfair
labor practice on the layoffs. During the discussion, he mentioned that ultimately he
would have to figure out a way to negotiate a new contract. He then said that the legal
process is a way of delaying decisions on what to do in the negotiations. And ten months
later, they are still delaying decisions on what to do. The legal cases are moving ahead. It
looks like, especially the dues check off case, is going to get resolved a lot sooner than
anybody thought. As I‟ve said before, wins in those cases will do good things for the
people who were laid off, getting them money, will push back on the companies efforts to
try to fool with our finances, but what they won‟t do is change the imposed contract
package on seniority and outsourcing because they don‟t deal with that directly. The
Guild tried to get an unfair labor practice on the imposed contract and we failed. The
language in the imposed contract cannot be challenged at least as far as I know with
(audio is unclear: any other court?) case.

If we delay in trying to get any kind of agreement on the contract until those cases,
especially the unfair labor practice case is resolved, it could be a year or more before

1
anything happens to do any negotiations in the contract. As far as I know, based on the
flyers I‟ve seen, we‟ve had one meeting since September of 2009 to see if we could
negotiate a new contract. It‟s not going to be easy. If there aren‟t any negotiations, the
company‟s going to be very insistent that it gets its way. But we have to try because the
longer we wait, we don‟t have any arbitration of grievances. People don‟t get any raises.
And, they don‟t have any protections from outsourcing or layoffs out of seniority. The
contract gives the company the final say on that. They have to negotiate it and they
botched the negotiations last summer, but there‟s no guarantee that the next round they
won‟t get it right.

We have to understand that this is the kind of pressures we are feeling from the
management are being driven by what I would call the crisis in the newspaper industry.
Circulation is sliding, ad revenue is on track to being down 47 percent at the end of this
year from what they were 5 years ago. Manager and owners of newspapers all over the
country are worried about their survival and they are not going to let up in doing things
that they think need to be done for the business to survive. So the longer we wait and wait
and wait on the court actions to wrap up, the weaker we are dealing with what is bound to
be more changes and more demands for, I don‟t know what, but I don‟t think anything
good given the state of the industry. We‟d be in a better position if we had a contract. I
just don‟t like the idea of doing nothing. We have to try now to get a deal because I think
it is in our best interest.

Tim: First of all thank you all for coming. I wish the turnout was a little better but that‟s
OK. I‟m sure you‟ll go back and spread the word. I also want to thank the local elections
committee, which has done a wonderful job preparing for this election and organizing
tonight‟s debate. Carol DeMare isn‟t here but Lindsay and Cathleen have done a
marvelous job.

I‟m very lucky. We have a great executive board and frankly the best board I‟ve had in
my tenure. They are very willing to take the initiative. The meetings lately have been
very productive. The other night, Thursday night, we suggested starting a Facebook page
and Mark Ramirez got right on it. It‟s there right now. You can friend it. We talked about
some concerns in advertising and the commission committee not functioning like it used
to where the company has just come in and said these are the commissions, take it or
leave it, not giving people the input. We were talking about it and Brian Nearing said “I‟ll
work on that. I‟ll put in an information request.” The board has got Dan RXXX who is
our treasurer, who is terrific. Lindsay does a wonderful job standing up for her people,
and I‟m very blessed to have as my secretary Mark Hempstead. Mark has done a
marvelous job. He is a wonderful secretary and I‟m honored to say a very good friend.

First of all, let me begin by saying some of the things you‟ve heard tonight are not true.
Ray would know some of the things that he said weren‟t true if he hadn‟t abruptly quite
the executive board. We have been negotiating directly with the company. So this fiction
that you‟ve been told repeatedly that Mark and I are unwilling to negotiate with the
company is indeed not true. We negotiate with the company all the time. For example,
over health care, over buyouts and this summer we sat down with the company and had

2
an off the record negotiation session, at our request, to settle everything, the legal cases,
the contract, etcetera. We did that off the record because the lawyers advised that if you
having an off the record to discussion to do so if it involves legal cases, do it off the
record. So we did that, presented to the company. We recently shared that with the
executive board because we are putting together a new proposal because health care has
arisen as another piece of leverage. We are meeting with the company a week from
tomorrow to present that package to settle everything. So the notion that we have not
been working on this is frankly baloney. We have been working very hard on this. We
have never forgotten for a moment that our goal is to use the legal decision as leverage to
get a contract. Ray would have known that if he hadn‟t quit the board.

You have also heard the fiction that Mark Hempstead and I somehow are all about
picking fights with the company. That is not true. We are about standing up for our
members and giving them a voice at the table. For example, when the company wanted to
outsource the job of our internal printing coordinator, Mark DeCenzo, we went to the
table on Mark‟s behalf and made the argument, won the case and Mark‟s job stayed here.
It did not get outsourced to Connecticut. When the company wanted to outsource
positions in maintenance, we negotiated an agreement. Two people took buyouts. The
cleaners, those jobs were outsourced, but there is a written agreement that no other
positions in maintenance can be outsourced.

Now the company wants to eliminate jobs among the district managers, in advertising art
marketing and on the web team. So what do Mark and I do when the company proposes
this? Well, we negotiated a buyout package with the company. Talking directly with the
company. And the result is that we reached a buyout agreement. We‟ve been told enough
district managers have put it for it. That won‟t be an issue. On the web team and at our
marketing end of things, I talked to George Hearst today. The web team he is fairly
confident that those jobs will be saved. The advertising art marketing end where Mark
works, we may end up in negotiations over layoffs. Keyword: negotiations. Because we
stood up for our right to negotiate over layoffs and outsourcing, we can have the
conversations that saved Mark DeCenzo‟s job and that let us go in and talk about jobs in
art marketing. Because we stood up for that language.

We put together a committee. We got together with the folks in the affected areas. Tim
Neff, Marianne Mahr and John Michaels. We put together a committee so that they could
come to the table and make the case, let their voices be heard, as to why that work is
important and the negative impact it would have to eliminate those jobs. So Mark and I
know all about bringing people to the table. Giving them the chance to be heard,
especially at the most critical point in someone‟s working life, when the company wants
to eliminate their jobs. We have never forgotten for one split second that our ultimate
goal is to use the legal cases as leverage to get a contract, and we are doing it again next
week. We also never forgot, and I‟ve said for months that after the company didn‟t accept
our proposal in September even though Brian Nearing who has seen the proposal as we
prepared the new one called it a sugar cookie and said he couldn‟t believe the company
didn‟t accept. And Brian gave me permission to repeat that he called it a sugar cookie.
And so we‟ve done the job and we‟ve been working on it and, you know, we are going to

3
keep working on it. We‟ll give them a full proposal next week and that was inspired not
by this campaign. It has always been our intent. We knew, come the fall, that something
is going to happen with that $750 deductible. That is another moment when you can use
the chance to use the leverage to get an agreement. That‟s what we are all about. Mark.

Mark: Thank you all for coming out tonight. The other slate tried to say the legal
victories aren‟t working but we just enjoyed two major legal victories. The things they
say they stand for are the things that Tim and I have been working for all along. They
would seem to want to settle for a contract that offers us no protections at all –
protections from outsourcing or seniority protections – but we are working toward a
contract that is going to give us protections.

Timekeeper: Time

Moderator: I‟d like to remind the candidates no personal attacks, OK? Alright. The first
question is to New Direction. Many members do not feel the guild is serving them well,
particularly young people and advertising employees. What will you do to address their
needs?

Ray: Well, I‟d agree that people in advertising are (pause) a lot of them zoned out after
their contract was canceled last April and there‟s very few people up in advertising
paying dues, which I take as a minimal indication of being involved in what the Guild is.
People I talked to a lot of them said they don‟t appreciate Tim O‟Brien‟s approach to
negotiation. They think it‟s being too involved in personal attacks on George Hearst and
they don‟t like that. They‟ve also, another problem has been that they don‟t think there‟s
been any attention given to the regular use of performance plans up there nailing people
for not, putting them on disciplinary action, because they don‟t, they are not making goal.

As far as what younger members want to see in the Guild, I don‟t really know what their
concerns are. I haven‟t had any conversations with anybody.

Ken: Part of it with younger members is reaching out. We have a record of doing that in
the past. I‟m sure you‟ll hear from Tim that they sent a bunch of people off to, when the
Guild was at the (audio unclear) convention. When it comes down to who‟s asking
people like Jimmy Vielkind, as the executive board did at my suggestion, and sending
him to the new officers seminar and talking to people, we have a lack of communication.

Timekeeper: Time.

Tim: First of all, I would dispute the premise of the question. I‟m not sure whose
question it is. First of all, we have been involved with people who have gotten
performance improvement plans. She doesn‟t mind my using her name. I‟ve worked
closely with Diane Mincher. She had endorsed Mark Hempstead and I. She‟s had a
performance improvement plan put in her file. We did put file a grievance when Stacy
Wood was subject to one but Stacy chose to take the buyout instead. It‟s not true that
we‟ve been inactive in that.

4
As far as reaching out to young people, we do that all the time. Many of them had a
concern about the issue of seniority, which is not uncommon in the Guild. We‟ve talked
to them about it, told them we are willing to be flexible and let the company keep good
people. So we are more than happy to address those concerns. One of the reasons we
launched the Facebook page was to help improve communications.

Moderator: Second question is to Stay Strong. Guild members haven‟t received a cost of
living increase in years. How will you reinstate the annual raise and get a contract for the
members.

Tim: That is what we are doing this week. Want to take this one Mark?
Mark: We have been negotiating all along and the goal is to use not only the legal cases
but also ongoing negotiation to form a contract and part of that contract would be raises,
but it also will be protection. Because if you sell out all your protection you get laid off
and any raise really doesn‟t matter much.

Moderator repeats question.

Ray: We are going to have to go into negotiations and in the process of that we are going
to have to try to get something out of the company not only to improve the nonexistent
seniority protections and outsourcing protections but to get some money, but it is going to
be extremely difficult. They are offering over two years, they are offering a 1.5 percent
raise in San Francisco. And in San Jose, they just agreed to a three-year contract, the
Guild there, that contained no raises and in Detroit yesterday the newspaper Guild there
agreed to a contract that calls for a 4.5 percent cut for people making $35,000 a year or
less and a 6.5 percent cut for people making over $35,000. Because of the business
environment, it is very, very difficult to get companies to talk about money. To get a raise
here, we are going to have to work out a way to get a settlement, too.

Moderator: Next question is to New Direction. You‟ve touched on this a little bit, but
what are the benefits and disadvantages of pursuing the Guild‟s lawsuits against the
company. How do you propose moving forward?

Ray: The biggest benefit of the unfair labor practice on the layoffs is that at some point
when it is resolved it should end up, at a minimum, getting additional money to the
people who were laid off. It would also result, if any of them wanted to come back, it
would trigger a new round of negotiations over layoffs. There‟s no, I don‟t see any
disadvantage to pursing that. The only question I‟ve got is when we are going to start
using that and talking about having in contract talks. I‟m glad to hear we are going to be
making proposals. As far as the dues check off case, there is no downside to pursuing
that. It pushes back on the company‟s efforts to interfere with our finances and
presumably try to undercut. And, that‟s it.

Moderator repeats the question.

5
Tim: The benefits are fairly clear. First of all, we didn‟t have a choice to file a lawsuit on
behalf of the people who were laid off. We knew that was done illegally. We told the
company as it was happening. The benefit of that case is not simply for those people who
were let go. That‟s kind of a misconception. The benefit of that case is that it also says to
th ecompnay „You have to negotiate,‟ because what the company did was declared the
impasse and imposed conditions. Under the law, you can‟t impose giving yourself
unfettered to layoff and outsource. So they have to negotiate. What that decision said to
the company is you can‟t just show up at the table, not change it, then declare that Oh,
we‟ve negotiated for X period of time, we‟re done, and impose. You have to come to the
table and negotiate. That applies not just to layoffs. It also applies to outsourcing. The
same principle. The benefit is we‟ve established, the company, when you want to layoff,
when you want to outsource, then you have to come to us and negotiate over it. You can‟t
just simply impose your will. That‟s the benefit. There really is no downside as far as I
can see. You don‟t want to let it go on forever. You want to use it as leverage to get a
settlement. That‟s what we‟ve been trying to do. That‟s what we will continue to do.

Moderator: Next question. What do you think of the proposed health care package and
the proposed CWA alternative?

Tim: The proposed health care package that they have given us obviously is dramatic
increases. The United Furniture Workers fund option doesn‟t look like it is going to pan
out, though I am waiting for answers from that fund. I was talking to George Hearst
today, contrary to the rumor that I don‟t talk to him directly, and he and I don‟t feud all
the time. This notion that we are just at each other‟s throats. We disagree on very specific
things. We work together on things all the time. And so I was talking to him today about
health care. He is very much pushing the 90/10 split, which I am very leery of. He said
he‟d be willing to keep the deductible at $750 instead of $1,000. But I said to him than
rather than talk to you about health insurance separately, we will make it part of the
package proposal. And that is the kind of thing we‟ve known all along. Not only would
the legal cases provide leverage, but once you propose conditions, you have to live under
those conditions. Any time the company wants to change anything, then we have
leverage to say, you can‟t do that unless you negotiate a contract.

Moderator repeats question.

Ray: Well, I have to defer to Tim on the CWA alternative. If it‟s not going to work, it‟s
not going to work. As far as the proposal from the company, we are going to have to
understand that health care has been a huge issue in this company for years, and it‟s a
huge issue for newspaper companies all over the country. There‟s been the Detroit deal
that I mentioned not only includes pay cuts, but it taken a big hit on heath insurance.
They have to pay more there. They had to do the same in Pittsburgh and I believe they
had to do the same in Memphis. It‟s been a problem all over the country. And if we can
get a settlement with that, if we can get a contract settlement in connection with that that
will be great. We tried that in 2008, we tried to tie a contract to the changes in health
insurance then and it didn‟t work, so I hope it works this time.

6
Moderator: A question for New Direction, how would you rank in terms of priority the
following issues and why? Job security, benefits, health care, wages and retirement.

Ray: I would say that the one that everyone is concerned about and everyone thinks
about he most is job security because they know what‟s been going on in this industry for
years and then know what‟s going on here, and that everyone is concerned about what
might happen.

Ken: Benefits, heath care, wages and retirement are all one in the same in economic
package. You would have to make a decision on where the money should go. I know
from talking to people that most people are worried about wages because they haven‟t
had a raise now in what three years, almost three and half years. Everybody is feeling it.
A lot of people started to feel it at the end of last year. Health care is a tradeoff in that
area given the state of the health care economy there just is not a lot of wiggle room.
They are seeing that in what Tim said about the CWA plan out of Tennessee, which I
don‟t know a lot about. And we are seeing what‟s being proposed. The company came
back with those three alternatives, which were all horrific just looking at the increases in
what we‟d all have to pay per a week. Benefits, sometimes you can pick something up in
benefits. Maybe we can get more time off for some people because the company may not
be willing to give us money, but they can give us, the won‟t give us $100 a week, but
they may give us an extra day off or an extra week‟s vacation. You can‟t just say those
three outside of job security are part of an overall economic package. You have to sit
down and get a good feeling for what people want. I would say right now people are
looking for wages, and then probably health care and then probably benefits after that.
Thank you.

Moderator repeats question.

Tim: I would start with job security. I think that is the first thing on everybody‟s mind.
Does anyone in this room, or does anyone that you know think if we gave Mark Aldam a
blank check to outsource jobs to Connecticut that he will hesitate do to so? We once
represented 45 drivers. We gave them language that they could outsource those positions
and today we represent zero. I want to be clear because Ray has repeatedly told people
both when we was on the executive board before he quit and to individual members.
Unfortunately Ty Stewart isn‟t here, but Ty was one of them, since he quit, that he thinks
we are just going to have to cut whatever deal we can get including giving up protections
on outsourcing. That‟s what Ray has told individuals, so the notion that Ray and Ken are
going to go in there and fight to protect outsourcing I have great doubts that that is true.
The other issues I think all fall in line. I think benefits and wages fall together, and health
care. I would rank retirement last. Not that it is not important, but in people‟s perspective.
Mark?

Mark: Pass.

Moderator: Next question, do Guild members need to increase our contributions to our
retirement pension in order to increase benefits?

7
Tim: At this point, no. One of the reasons that the two slates started to differ with each
other was over the pension fund. Particularly, the handover of the pension fund to the
company. Mark Hempstead and I were both adamant that needed to be subject to a
membership vote. Ken Crowe repeatedly said no, no, no. The pension trustee

Moderator: Easy on the personal, OK?

Tim: It‟s not personal. This is the decision was made. Ken was very specific that he
thought the pension trustees should make that decision without a membership vote, so
that is the distinction. I‟m not talking about personalities. I‟m talking about positions.
And Mark and I thought very strongly that does need to go to a membership vote.
Because the pension fund is now in control of the company, an increase in the
contribution is not at this point on the table.

Moderator repeats the question.

Ray: We are in a pension plan that is now over-funded thanks to the pension merger and
we would have to have a full negotiation with the company to actually, I don‟t even know
if the company would need a representative from the corporation to talk about a benefit
increase in pensions. Every other pension in the country has seen freezes or cuts so you
know it would be highly unusual for use need an increase. But since Tim has brought up
the pension talks last year, people need ot understand that if he thought if we needed to
have a vote, he could have talked about that when he first learned about it. When we first
had the conference call with all the trustees and Bernie Lunzer and Barbara Camens,
anytime during the negotiations, which is was AWOL and totally ignored, and then when
he came in and tried to take over the final negotiations of the pension, he was (audio
unclear) the trustees to delay the decision and basically trying to kill it. So he had plenty
of time to bring up the idea of a membership vote and he never did until after he agreed
that he was OK with everything discussed in the pension negotiations. It was just a stunt
to try to kill it.

Ken: You can also go back, the pension is still subject to negotiation.

Timekeeper: Time.

Stay Strong uses its “Two Minutes Extra” option.

Tim: First of all, what Ray just said is not true. I consistently said throughout the process
that there should be a membership vote. At one point, Ken during a conference call said
we‟ll meet the members after we made the decision and I said that is not correct. Ray,
you‟re not telling the truth when you say that I was pulling some stunt to try to stop the
deal. You said that once before at a membership meeting. It wasn‟t true then, it isn‟t true
now. My concern always has been, and what I did shows it, my concern was that I
wanted member to enter that with eyes wide open. That there is a benefit to moving into
this but there is also a risk. The company could freeze our pension plan so what I put out,

8
I never publicly opposed, it‟s untrue that I ever publicly opposed the pension fund
transfer. What I said was go into this with your eyes wide open. So the notion that I was
somehow pulling a stunt is a fiction that Ray has aired before and refused to apologize for
but it‟s not true.

New Direction uses its “Two Minute Extra” option.

Ken: When we came to the end of the pension negotiations, what you have to understand
is that I was asked by the pension trustees to negotiate, to represent them in the
negotiations with Hearst Corporate, which was Eve Burton. And Melissa Locke Nelson,
the past president and a past pension trustee was sent up by the international and I asked
Melissa, here takeover and she said no, you do it. So I did it. And we went back and
forth. It took hours. At the conclusion, when we had reached a deal, Eve Burton, the
corporate attorney turned to Tim and said Tim are there any problems with this deal and
he said “No.”

Our pension plan is one of the few surviving, functioning Guild pension plans. What Tim
failed to mention is that during his administration as president, our pension went into a
soft freeze. That‟s why there are limits on years of services, why there‟s now a 50 percent
cut at 55. We have one of the only functioning pension plans within the newspaper
industry. The Tribune papers are gone. McClatchy is gone. Philadelphia Inquirer, the
Boston papers, Pittsburgh, Chicago Sun Times, Baltimore, Los Angeles Times, Newsday,
or Newsday might be getting something back slightly. That was a great deal. As Bernie
Lunzer said, in the conference call, nobody gives a pension plan $9 million bucks. What
we were facing was just the whittling of benefits over the years. We would have lost our
life insurance and after that we would have had to go to a hard freeze. The company also
raised the specter of layoffs because they were going to have to take a million dollars or
more out of cash flow from the Times Union and I said we don‟t have that revenue
coming in like we used to. That was 10 to 12 positions that we estimated. So that pension
not only saved people‟s retirement, that agreement, but it also saved jobs. Thank you.

Moderator: The next question is to New Direction, at this difficult time in the news
industry, what is your vision for keeping the union meaningful and relevant?

Ray: Assuming we can ever get a settlement, one of the things I would like to try to do is
figure out ways to try to anticipate problems and be prepared to try to deal with it and not
always react to it. This is just a problem I‟m sure everywhere. People have a lot of things
they need to do. There are a lot of day to day issues, but I would love to try to figure out a
way to try to be a little more proactive. I also very specifically would like to see the Guild
take the lead in dealing with training issues for people because I think the company is
absolutely lousy in giving people the kind of training they need either for their current
jobs or as jobs shift and change in the future, and that would be a great way actually to
help our members also show up the kind of lack of vision that we have from our
management sometimes. Those would be two things that I would to do.

9
Ken: Also, we‟d like to see more training in the Guild level. We use to send numerous
people each year to the new officer‟s seminar. That hasn‟t been happening. We have one
going, a lucky number. I know people here haven‟t gone. You all should go because
when you get people, they don‟t have to be officers. You get rank and file people where
people know what their rights are and how to operate. It‟s another layer of defense and
it‟s a way of getting people active and investment in the union and their (audio unclear).
What we have to do is get the people trained and use those resources. There are resources
available out there. They are not always easy and it demands time. Thank you.
Moderator repeats question.

Tim: There are several things. And by the way, we continue to send people to the new
officers seminar. Lindsay went last year. Brian and Brendan we‟ll be looking at you this
year. So we continue to do that. We continue to work to make the union relevant by
making clear what we do for people. Everyday. The notion that the union anything,
everday, I sit down today in the cafeteria, three people from advertising, very concerned
about their work and supporting of advertising. Three people quit on the obit desk. Their
being forced to do that job and yet do their other work. There are actually ad sales people
who haven‟t been able to go out on sales calls because they had to do clerical work
because these folks are doing obits. Sitting down with those folks at 11 o‟clock tomorrow
we have a meeting with the company to talk about this. We are actively involved
everyday. I think Brian Nearing has gotten a real awakening as chief steward on how
much stuff is going on at any one time, so the notion that we are not actively in our
members lives, we are actively involved everyday.

(Slates ask each other questions)

Moderator: New Direction gets to ask the first question.

Ray: The first question I‟d like to ask is from September 2009 up until about April there
was absolutely no communication with the membership about what was going on with
the contract and people wanted to know what was going on. There were no meetings.
There were no announcements, nothing. Why the blackout on that?

Tim: I don‟t agree with the premise of the question. There was no blackout on
information. We talk to our members, communicate with our members, so Mark. I don‟t
know how to answer a question …

Mark: I don‟t agree with that either. We continue to send out flyers to keep people
involved. We updated the web site on a monthly basis. The blog was kept active, and it
seemed to draw in people, even people who no longer work for the Times Union. I got
calls from people who used to work here and they‟d say hey, what‟s going on, I heard
this by looking on the web site, so I don‟t think there was a blackout at all.

Ray: I just disagree. People were asking me what was going on. They were asking him. I
referred to Tim.

10
Ken: Then they‟d come back with no answer. Part of the problem also was there wasn‟t
any information coming about the contract unfair labor practice, which the local
unfortunately we lost. It would have been a great victory if we had been able to pull it off.
And you all know that, but it seemed to be doomed.

Moderator: Stay Strong gets to ask the second question.

Tim: I guess one of the questions I have is so far Ray and Ken keep saying we need to do
something differently but I don‟t think they‟ve conveyed at all to members what they
would do differently in terms of getting an agreement. I have not heard anything from
you that indicates that you actually have any idea what you would do that is different that
what Mark and I are already doing.

Ray: Well if you mean the process of getting an agreement, as far as I know, you‟ve
made one effort to get an agreement this past July or August and that‟s one time since
September 2009 to then and you know there was nothing done after that. You just
announced that there was going to be another attempt next week but I don‟t know why
we have to sit on our hands and not make an effort to continue off the record talks with
the company regularly and try to get a settlement. As far as if you are talking about
specific issues, well, no one knows what specific things you are trying to do to get a
settlement. Iknow from my time on the executive board that the proposals that you were
drafting then emphasized an incredible amount of procedural safeguards on especially
outsourcing and were designed to preserve our rights under the national labor relations
act but they were not in essence meeting the company‟s demand that there had to be some
change in the outsourcing or the seniority.

Timekeeper: Time

Tim: There were proposed changes on both outsourcing and seniority and Ray you
would know more about what the executive board is discussing if you hadn‟t abruptly
quit. The fact of the matter is that we have continued to have discussions with the
company. Obviously, a legal case is involved so they have been off the record
discussions. So, I really wish I could sit here and tell you all that we have discussed and
how the company replied but I can‟t. But the fact of the matter is I still haven‟t heard
anything that indicates that you have a distinct view of how we would proceed other than
somehow you would do it differently than us. You‟ve repeatedly accused Mark and I of
not be willing to negotiate directly with the company. I don‟t know where you get that
information from. It‟s not true. You haven‟t talked to me. You haven‟t attended executive
board meetings. You haven‟t talked to any other member on the executive board.
Brendan was just elected and attended one meeting so far. That‟s fine because he just got
elected. You are not talking to the international rep, so I don‟t know where you are
getting your information from that we are not willing to talk directly to the company
because it is not true.

Moderator: New Direction gets to ask the next question.

11
Ken: Back when were mobilizing, Mark was chairman of the mobilizing committee and
was requested to do things and did not. Tim O‟Brien and Tim Schick came to me and
asked me to step up. I‟m the one who ran the advertising campaign, which a lot of people
didn‟t like but we did it to call attention. I‟m asking what are going to do?

Mark: Are you asking me specifically? First off I would dispute that claim. I was with
you and worked with you together. We called in Tim for advice from the International. I
was out there. We went to various places. We weren‟t boycotting, but we made our
presence known to advertisers. We designed a campaign together. To say I wasn‟t
involved is just not true.

Tim: I‟d like to add to that that at one executive board meeting, and this is in the minutes,
Ken actually suggested such an extreme proposal that it went nowhere. He actually
suggested that we try to the state to block state workers access to TimesUnion.com,
which was an egregiously outrageous proposal. It didn‟t go anywhere but that is what
Ken proposed. You can check the minutes.

Ken: I‟m talking about designing the campaign that we actually did. The advertising
campaign when you were asked to do things, come up with some ads and you
disappeared and never did it. Oh, I suggested that. We were looking for outreach. How
could we make a financial impact on the company when you are going to war that‟s what
you do. I suggested that. It was a good idea.

Ray: It‟s telling that Tim didn‟t want to do that.

Moderator: Stay Strong gets to ask the next question.

Tim: I really don‟t have any more questions. I think you‟ve gotten a good sense where
people stand.

Moderator: New Direction do you have another question?

Ray: Yeah, I‟d like to ask a question. You‟ve brought up several times that I abruptly
quit the executive board and that I didn‟t, I hadn‟t been paying attention to what‟s going
on and all kinds of other stuff. So I would like to ask you, why you thought it was OK to
regularly verbally abuse me at the executive board meetings where you‟d periodically
yell and scream and dispute and distort what I said and then based on that distortion of
what I‟d said, claim that I was a stooge of George Hearst or that I was trying to
undermine what you were doing.

Moderator: Let‟s try to keep personal attacks out of this, alright?

Ray: That‟s the way the guy is. People don‟t know that. He verbally abused me at the
executive board meetings. Eveybody who was there knows it. You know it. You know it.
He won‟t admit but you know it and everybody was there did. So saintly Tim O‟Brien
you know, baloney.

12
Tim: I‟m glad (audio unclear) personal attacks. First of all, it is baloney what Ray just
said but you don‟t have to listen to me. You can talk to Mark. You can talk to Lindsay.
You can talk to Dan Roesser. You can to John (audio unclear) and other members of the
executive board and they all will tell you I never verbally abused Ray. The reason he quit
the executive board is he came to a meeting and we were discussion an issue in the
circulation department and I started to do what I usually do, “on the one hand this, on the
other hand that.” Ray interrupted me repeatedly and finally I slammed my fist on the
table and said “God damn it Ray let me finish.” That ticked Ray off and he left and quit.
But it was after he repeatedly interrupted me three times that that happened. But in terms
of regularly abusing Ray that‟s not true. We had differences of opinion, and there‟s a case
involving a benefit the company wanted to take away from district managers based on the
depot system being created 15 years ago and I said Ray you just can‟t say yes to that.
You got to have something more recent. The company can‟t hang a decision on
something that happened 15 years ago and so he quit and Brian Nearing and I did the due
diligence and saved that benefit for some of the district managers. We had differences of
opinion over issues that were never personal, at least on my end.

Ken: I often attended executive board meetings until December of last year, January of
this year and they were a couple of times that I intervened and said that Ray was
reporting what the company had said to calm down the remarks that were being made at
Ray, that was Ray was espousing something when he was just reporting what the
company had said. And that‟s it.

Closing statements
Moderator: New Directions goes first

Ray: I would only reiterate what I‟ve said here. The legal cases need to continue, but we
still need to continue our efforts to negotiate the contract settlement. Despite what‟s been
said tonight, you know, I quit the executive board in part because I was tired of the
baloney that he was dishing out to me but mainly because I completely lost any
confidence in his judgment during the pension merger. And the only thing I‟m going to
say about that is that after it was all over, after he stood in the back of the room over at
the library there and counted the yes votes, getting angrier and angrier as the yes votes
piled up. He came over to me and said I know consider you a former friend. That‟s what
he said, so the idea that it wasn‟t personal between us that‟s not true. And the idea that he
was making some effort to just make sure that members had a voice in the pension
merger agreement, that‟s not true either. You don‟t say something like that. He was just
irked that he couldn‟t manipulate everybody into killing the plan and so that‟s it.

Ken: What it comes down to it‟s easy to sit here and say we are doing things. We‟ve all
noticed since this election campaign began at the end of September, we‟ve seen a fury of
activity from the other side, Stay Strong. Well, the strongest elements have always come
from our slate. When people need to stand up and do things when confronting the
company, I ran the advertising campaign. Ray pulled things together for circulation.
We‟ve always been willing to do things. We‟ve always talked. We‟ve always been able

13
to talk with the company. You can hate people. I don‟t hate them. And, but you still have
to talk. The biggest thing I‟m hearing is well, if you hadn‟t left the executive board. Well,
he left the executive board so of course he‟s not going to know all the details that went
on.

Ray is a known quantity. He‟s proven in terms of representing people and that‟s what we
need. We need people who go in and talk to the company. I‟ve been there myself. So, as
I‟ve said, we‟ve seen a flurry of activity all of the sudden. Sometimes complacency sets
in when you have been in office too long. I think that‟s what‟s happened. What we need
is a new direction. We need a strong voice and we can provide that. I‟m sure we‟ll hear
lots of things coming up in the counter, but hey, this is what it‟s all about isn‟t it? So,
you know, if we get elected, we‟ll go out and we‟ll fight to get a contract. We won‟t just
hide behind legal activity that nobody knows what‟s going on for months at a time like
with the unfair labor practice on the contract, which we lost.

As Bernie Lunzer and Barbara Camen said in the conference call, which we were part of
when it was open to the membership, they said it is leverage. They are tools to be used.
Since that, they went into executive session and we‟ve heard comments have come out of
executive session. Brian made a couple of nice comments that were used in their
campaign literature. I wish you had said them for me, or I could have used them. But the
thing it comes down to is it cherry picking. OK, we did this in executive session. It‟s
closed off to everyone. Now we‟ll use it in the literature. That‟ the sort of thing you see.

Thanks for coming. And I hope we can count on your votes.

Tim: I don‟t want to beat this particular dead horse but I want to respond to one of the
things about the discussion after the pension fund vote. I wasn‟t getting angrier and
angrier at the results. I expected the results. What I said to Ray is that Jim Schaufenbil
had sat the two of us down and tried to make amends and what I said to Ray was, you
stood up at a meeting and called me two-faced, called me a liar and said I had a secret
plan to kill this deal. That‟s not true but you‟ve never apologized.

Ray: You never apologized to him for the crap you spouted, either.

Tim: Ray I have the floor. So what I was, that‟s when I said you‟ve never apologized and
that‟s when the former friend line came out. That‟s the full context, but that‟s neither here
nor there whether we like each other personally is not relevant. What is relevant is what
we stand for. This is a critical time for our union. And we need leadership that is going to
stand up for your right to have a say, to be brought to the table when the company wants
to outsource or eliminate your job. That‟s what Mark and I stand for and this is a critical
moment. We‟ve been working really hard. There hasn‟t been a flurry of activity lately
because there is a political campaign. There‟s been a flurry of activity lately, well, first of
all, there‟s always a flurry of activity. It never stops. This been a flurry of activity lately
because we are coming to the end of the year, health care is now an issue and that‟s
potential leverage. That stuff has been originating because of those reasons. Not because
you are running against me. Everything we‟ve done, Mark and I, we‟d be doing whether

14
there was a campaign or not. I don‟t anybody who knows me can honestly say that I don‟t
work my butt off for this union. The same is true for Mark. Claiming that Mark is not
active. He‟s our newsletter editor, he‟s won multiple awards. He‟s put the newsletter on
the backburner because we‟ve got so much else going on that we use the web more.

The fact of the matter is this is a critical moment and we need leadership that is going to
stand up for your right to a say. We have been working to build the leverage that makes
us stronger and makes our case for getting a better deal stronger. There are other locals
that have been through what we are going through and they came out in the end stronger.
It takes time. It takes patience, but this is not the time to go off in some ill-advised, ill-
defined new direction. This is the time to stay strong. Thank you.

15