 |
Public Broadcasting PolicyBase | |
|
A
service of Current Newspaper and
the National Public
Broadcasting Archives |
NABET-NPR Bargaining Committee Recommendation
National Public Radio technicians, represented by Local 31 of the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians, voted 89 to 10 percent to reject NPR's contract offer Jan. 11, 2002. With this recommendation, the union's bargaining committee urged members to vote no. See also Current article.
The negotiations with NPR Management have been long and, at times, difficult. However, we have reached a point where both sides feel it is time for the unit to decide the issues. You may review the final contract language as proposed by Management by looking over the hard copies distributed in the workplace, or accessing an on-line copy at the NABET Local 31 website. Please read it carefully. You will shortly be receiving a ballot form for you to cast your vote, along with a return envelope. Voting instructions will be included with the ballot. We urge everyone to vote.
The NPR Bargaining Committee feels that many great strides have been made in this contract. We will list them in a moment. However, we also feel that NPR is inappropriately investing in new facilities, programming, and infrastructure, and not investing in one of it's greatest assets -- the engineers. Therefore, we are recommending that all members vote "NO" to this contract.
The Positives
There's no question -- we've secured rights and privileges that are unprecedented in our history. Here are several examples:
- We have the right to binding arbitration in the settlement of disputes with Management. No one else in the company, not even AFTRA, has that.
- Management would no longer be able to haphazardly apply discipline. Your evaluation form would become a tool for communication and feedback, and a person could only be discharged for cause.
- In the area of layoffs, we have secured provisions that are seniority-based and flexible for the affected personnel. We’ve retained a lump sum severance as part of our layoff package, something AFTRA gave up in its last negotiations. We increased our recall period from 6 months to 9 months (though we had sought 18 months as part of our final position).
- We have established and codified procedures for many issues, such as obtaining leave, selecting and administering schedules, and applying penalties. In the past, many of these items were left to Management discretion or subject to change without notice.
- We have increased benefits for part-time employees and achieved a percentage limit of temporary employment to regular employment in DC.
- The TD compensation has been increased from the current $8 per day, to $2 per hour for all hours worked.
- The BRT shift pick will change from twice a year to three times a year in a test year, and could become permanent if successful.
- Continuous tour language has been added. If your first shift ends with four hours or less until your next shift, all hours will count as part of the first shift, at overtime rates.
- We’ve added procedures for seniority based assignments on remotes and for training.
- Temporary employees hired as regular employees will have up to two years of past service credited to their unit seniority.
- NABET will have representatives on the Benefits Task Force and as part of an Advisory Committee with management.
The Negatives
In spite of these steps, we feel that Management is capable of investing more into this bargaining unit in terms of respect for our abilities, and resources to attract, keep and develop highly skilled personnel. We have identified three main areas of concern: the preservation of jurisdiction over current technology, the right to bargain over the jurisdiction of future technology, and the inadequate allocation of company resources to current and future members.
1. The Company's language negatively affects our current jurisdiction. It is no secret that Management wants to change the working conditions for the Broadcast Recording Technicians. By their own studies, Management has shown that approximately 60% of the work performed by the BRTs involves mixing. However, they want that to change by allowing others, notably AFTRA personnel, to mix in the digital domain as well. Please note that this change is unilateral -- they did not offer any other work, or an equal opportunity for both sides to share aspects of production and engineering. This represents a major change in jurisdiction for the BRTs.
Until the Company withdraws its proposal to allow others to mix VOTE NO!
Until the Company adopts an unbiased strategy to improve production efficiency VOTE NO!
There are other examples of vulnerability for the BRTs in this contract, but there are issues for the other departments involved as well. Due to vague and obtuse Company language in the subcontracting area of Article 5, the STC, Depot and Shop may be forced to watch others perform tasks that were previously assigned to us. Management could argue a shortage of manpower or equipment at any time they wish -- even though they supply both! Equally objectionable language in the definitions section may have others working in "non-technical" facilities that normally would have been manned by STC, BRT or Media Center operators. Other language in that section would remove computers that are used for audio production from the Unit's jurisdiction. Such technology, like Dalet, Sonic, Pro Tools, etc., is currently used or worked on by BRTs, STC, and Shop personnel.
Until the Company reduces the number and duration of its subcontracting activities VOTE NO!
2. The Company refuses to bargain over future technology. You may question whether that's a valid argument. You might have been right, if management had agreed to the language the Union proposed for Article 24, giving us the right to bargain with the Company over future technology and its impact. However, they flatly refused. As you will notice, they will simply inform us of their intentions. If we agree to this contract, we will have no say in the matter -- we will simply have to trust their decision and hope for the best.
3. The Company is withholding resources that can be invested in our personal and professional development. Our objections to Article 8 and 9 include: the lack of penalty upgrades for short turnaround and missed meals; low yearly wage increase percentages; the reduction of pay for initial probation; the elimination of position upgrades for the Shop and Depot; the reduction of proposed pay for the Media Duplication Center personnel and Technical Directors; and the creation of a separate step schedule for new hires.
Resources are not limited to money. Other examples of resource investments include:
- Committing to maintaining the highest standards of engineering practice, instead of "established practice" (see definition of quality control).
- Taking the time to work with STC personnel in order to create a satisfactory TD position, instead of possibly drafting them into a position that works a 5-day workweek (see Article 11, also affects Shop and Depot).
- Giving a laid-off person more than nine months for recall rights to their old job and unit seniority (see Articles 12 and 13).
Until we achieve, at a minimum, parity with non union staff in future wage percentage increases VOTE NO!
To summarize, we think the Company can do better. We also think they are testing our strength of character. It is up to you show them right, or prove them wrong. We hope you will join us in sending them a resounding "NO".
Sincerely,
NABET-CWA NPR Negotiations Committee
Source: NABET Local 31 website.
Public Broadcasting PolicyBase
A service of Current Publishing Committee and the National Public Broadcasting Archives
Jan. 14, 2002
E-mail: web
current.org