About a week earlier strikers voted down a proposed contract by an 80 percent margin after the company claimed millions in losses during the strike would force them to lay off 10 percent of the workforce. The bosses said they would protect the jobs of workers who crossed the picket line and 68 replacement workers first. Several strikers said their stand on this issue, as shown by their overwhelming vote, was the most important factor in getting the company to drop their demands. In the new contract layoffs will be according to seniority.

The company agreed that 90 percent of new hires will be required to join the union, rather than the 80 percent they demanded, and to pay 75 percent of medical insurance as opposed to 66 percent in the past. The two-tier pay scale for suburban reporters will be phased out as well.

In terms of wages--the main issue that prompted the strike--the deal sticks with the company's original proposal with raises totaling $3.30 an hour over a six-year contract. The newspaper workers had originally demanded a three-year contract with raises totaling $3.25 an hour.

Naomi Hoida, a worker in the classified ads department who has been at the paper for 19 years, voted for the latest offer and is leaning towards taking early retirement. Like many strikers she believes the workers deserve a better contract, especially in terms of wages, but felt this was probably the best they could do at this point. She explained: "I feel really good about the strike. We banded together and helped each other. We made the company a better place for our co-workers. I see it as a question of principle and ethics--not me, me, me, but us, us, us. We fought for what we believed in."

Some felt strongly that the contract should be rejected. Teri McClain, a sales associate at the Times for the past year, wore her picket signs to the contract information meeting just before the vote. She inverted the signs and wrote on their blank sides: "My momma didn't raise her children to just settle." and "Why vote yes for nothing?"

Another issue that strikers were concerned about was their ability to support Local 174 of the Teamsters. The 94 union drivers honored the Guild and CWA strike and joined the picket lines every day of the 49-day strike. Teamsters Local 763, which has more members, did not honor the picket line.

Local 174's current contract with the Times ends in February and the company is not expected to offer them a decent contract. In the case of a strike by Local 174 the Guild and CWA contracts allow their members to honor the Teamsters picket lines for a period of one year from the ratification date of their just-approved agreements.

Jan Held, who works in the composing room, spoke strongly against the contract and about Local 174. "It's unconscionable," she said. "Local 174 supported us and the right to honor their strike after one year has been given away." Some other strikers explained that they are looking forward to supporting Local 174, if needed in the coming year.

Just prior to voting, striker Teresa Parks told the Militant: "I wonder if we could get more if we stay out longer. I'm voting yes [for the contract] but it's not an enthusiastic yes."

The strike, which began November 21, included more than 800 workers in news, publishing, and circulation at the Times. About 130 newsroom workers at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer were also on strike and approved a new contract about a week earlier.

While the companies got some of what they wanted in the new contracts, many unionists at the papers said the bosses now face a different workforce. Flossie Pennington, a sales assistant for five years in display advertising, said she "wouldn't have traded this experience for anything. It's been wonderfully terrible. They now know we have it in us to fight."

Ernest Mailhot is a member of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 81. John Naubert contributed to this article.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home