The New York Times Company has been negotiating with its newsroom employees since March 31, 2011. The company has offered a contract with a 35-hour work week, keeping the current medical plan intact. However, the company also wants to impose a "pension freeze"--which means no more payments into the current pension plan. Instead, the company would chip in money, equivalent to 3-5% of an employee's pay, into a 401K plan.
The Times reporters think this is outrageously unfair:
Some of my favorite parts:
- The first reporter, doing his darnedest to dress like a humanities professor, complete with bow tie
- The salaries of just $100,000 - $130,000 per year
- Yes, they're all wearing little "Guild" buttons
- The air of insufferable entitlement, especially from the older scribes
Times reporters finally encounter the Obama economy: hilarity ensues. Ricocheters, please tell me your favorite bits in the comments.
For me, the most laughable (and saddest) part comes at 4:15, where a staffer says that in a pension plan, "I at least have the safety of knowing that I have money coming in... at least, it's there for me." The union's line is that a 401K is much riskier because it depends on the market.
Do these people read newspapers? Have they ever heard of what happens to pension plans when companies go under, or when the stock market hiccups? Where do these people think pension plan money sits? In heaven?
Where have they been since the 1970s?