Bay City News Service Guild members unanimously ratified a new three-year contract last night that improves pay and other benefits, while avoiding any concessions.
To play this game, plug in your weekly pay, indicate what Guild health benefits you currently have and then select possible Hearst choices from the “same as” management plan. See what your pay will look like with a 1.5% increase and the contributions you will have to make to the Hearst-sponsored benefits.
The company and guild representatives met Monday in Modesto and Wednesday in Sacramento to continue bargaining on the production center consolidation.
At least a hundred Chronicle Guild members and allies took a break together today to walk around the building in protest of Hearst’s contract proposal that spikes health care costs but offers very little in pay increases.
“We love the Chronicle, and we love journalism, but we can’t keep donating our own livelihoods to increase the profits of our corporate owners.” Join our Twitter campaign on Monday.
Scores of reporters, editors and workers at the San Francisco Chronicle are using the social media tools of their trade — including Twitter and Facebook — in an unusual protest against Hearst.
None of us ever expected to make big money writing for a newspaper, even though it’s a demanding, often stressful job. But we did expect to be paid decent salaries we could live on, good health insurance, a reasonable amount of time off and some retirement.
Hearst refused Monday to increase its pay offer of 1.5% a year over the proposed four-year term of a new contract. Nor would the management offer any more than it pays now (the same amount paid since 2005) to maintain our current health plan.
I’m Mike Kepka. Raising three young daughters, I’m exposed to every cold and virus you might imagine. So having affordable access to medical care is a priority for me. Unfortunately, Hearst is proposing to make our health plans a whole lot less affordable. I love the Chronicle, and the work …
The Guild team crunched numbers provided by Hearst and determined that the Company’s own proposal would cost it about $600,000 more per year than our current system.