• by Erik Sass  @eriksass1, June 9, 2009

Having unilaterally imposed a 23% pay cut across the board, The New York Times Co. has, for now, rescinded its threat to close The Boston Globe. But as might be expected, the huge pay cut is still engendering bad feeling between management and employees. During both the failed union negotiations and the aftermath, workers have expressed resentment that cuts would not fall as heavily on management.

The 23% pay cut was the "Alternative Final Proposal" from NYTCO's management, meaning the fall-back plan if negotiations should fail.

After expressing "disappointment" that the union negotiations failed, NYTCO said the 23% cut would take effect almost immediately, beginning next week. However, one longtime employee interviewed by Editor & Publisher said this plan would also face obstacles from the National Labor Relations Board.

Yesterday, the union that represents the Globe's journalists rejected the demands of the paper's owner, The New York Times Co. -- including a wage cut of 8.3%, five days of unpaid furlough per employee, and benefit reductions affecting health care, 401(k)s and pensions. The deal would also have ended guarantees of lifetime employment for 190 newsroom workers out of a total 690.

The package of concessions, worth $10 million, was the result of an initial agreement between union negotiators and the company, which the union leaders then put to a vote. The "no" vote by the Newspaper Guild, by a narrow margin of 277-265, is effectively calling the "bluff" of NYTCO management, which has threatened to close the newspaper.

NYTCO first warned in April that it might have to close The Boston Globe unless it secured a total $20 million worth of concessions from a number of unions representing production, distribution and newsroom employees. Management says it needs to take this course of action to offset a projected loss of $85 million in 2009.

However, skeptics said the newspaper had too much intrinsic value as a media business and brand for NYTCO to actually shut it down. Some have suggested the costs of the shutdown itself might exceed the company's much-diminished cash supply.