The Phoenix

Totten's tepid endorsement

Yesterday I suggested that the Boston Newspaper Guild--despite its formal endorsement of the contract that Guild members'll vote on this Monday--may actually be pushing for a "No" vote.

A quote from Guild head Dan Totten in today's Globe doesn't really challenge that assessment. Writes reporter Robert Gavin: "Totten said the union leadership continues to support the contract offer. Asked how he’ll vote, Totten said, 'I endorse it.'" [emph. added]

All of this raises a question: if the "endorsement" of the Guild is required by the tentative agreement that the Guild and management reached a few weeks back, what exactly does that endorsement require, on a substantive level? And if, in fact, proof emerged that Guild leadership was sending signals that undermined its purported endorsement, what legal consequences might there be?

Any labor lawyers in the house?

Published Jul 17 2009, 06:24 AM by Adam Reilly

Insider said:

The Deadwood Brigade is on the march, Adam. That's the motivated militia of underworked hacks and lifetimers who are trying to save their expendable jobs by agitating for a "no" vote. Totten is a three-star general.

July 17, 2009 8:06 AM
InsiderNegot said:

There could be legal consequences but difficult to prove as long as the Guild leadership doesn't make a obvious blunder.

More importantly, if in reality they are not fully endorsing and reccomending the offer, they are misrepresenting themselves to either their members, management or both. This will effect their long term ability to represent their members with this owner or the next.

A tiger doesn't change its stripes and any new owner will be very weary of dealing with the Guild and taking them at their word.

July 17, 2009 9:52 AM