MediaFile

You could be forgiven for feeling like you heard it all before when you woke up this morning to headlines saying that The Boston Globe’s management and its largest union held talks to discuss pay cuts and other concessions to keep the 137-year-old daily newspaper breathing.

After all, you HAVE read it before — several times.

The union and the Globe both refuse to talk about what they’re discussing in private, but it’s pretty clear that you don’t meet for nearly 13 hours and pledge to meet again the next day if all you’re doing is altering some HR paperwork. The fact that a National Labor Relations Board meeting scheduled for today isn’t happening — it has been tentatively rescheduled — shows that “impasse” might no longer be the right word to characterize the dispute. The cut is still supposed to go into effect this week, though it should not be too hard for the Globe to deposit some cash into a reserve fund that it can use in the future if it ends up reaching an agreement with the guild.

The upshot of all this talk could be significant. The Times Co has taken off the table its threat to close the money-losing newspaper, which cools things off to some extent. Nevertheless, the company does not want to gut a property that it once praised to the skies and paid $1.1 billion for, even though its revenue is falling steeply enough that it needs to find some major ways to cut costs.

If the Times Co and the union can strike an accord over concessions, the Times can get out of what has become one of its toughest trials with cost savings AND its reputation of being a business that cares about journalism intact. Union members, meanwhile, will not have to think about their immediate plans for life with nearly a quarter less money than they were making before.

It’s not what flacks call a “win-win,” but at least everyone would walk away alive.

Covering the roiling labor dispute between The New York Times-owned Boston Globe and its biggest union, the Boston Newspaper Guild, is all about hours (or days) of tedium, punctuated by brief, jarring moments of action — usually when reporters are scrambling to catch up with the Globe’s own coverage of its future.******Our Boston-based interin Erin Kutz got a taste of this on Monday when I asked if she could go to Weymouth, Massachusetts, to stake out the scheduled talks between the Globe and the guild.******To recap: Guild members on June 8 rejected a concession package that the Times Co said it needed to get $10 million in savings that would help save the paper from, well, annihilation. In response to the union’s “no” vote, the Times did what it promised to do: cut guild salaries by 23 percent to get the savings. Now, the two sides are about to duke it out in front of the National Labor Relations Board, which has its first hearing on the case on Tuesday.******But first, the guild and the union met in Weymouth today to discuss… stuff. The Times said it was about implementing the pay cut. The guild said it was an opportunity to present a new proposal. The Times doesn’t want to give the impression that it’s still open to discussion because the only way that it can get the government to allow the 23 percent pay cut is to prove that it reached an impasse with the guild.******So what’s going on in there? Erin reported back that nobody is saying very much, even after waiting there with the TV crews for more than four hours. Talks are scheduled to go on, but in the meantime, Globe reporter and union member Scott Allen brought this message from guild President Dan Totten, who’s locked up with the Times crew in Weymouth:***

Things are moving forward. I can tell you they’re speaking in civil tones. I think the mood by the end of last week was as bad as the situation is. It is something we can fix and both sides, management included, are motivated to bring this thing to a close and move on to the next chapter.

******Allen also said:***

I’m not particularly frightened about having a new owner. It could be an exciting and positive development, but it makes a big deal of difference who that is.

******Does this sound like an impasse to you?******(PS, Erin got to go home, finally)******(Photo: Reuters)

News Corp Chief Executive showed up for his latest interview on the Fox Business Network (which he owns) on Monday. Here is a transcript of some of his remarks. He covered a lot of ground, from tonight’s union concession vote at The Boston Globe to the future of newspapers and the inclusion of software on computers sold in China that will block access to certain websites. We are providing excerpts — we trimmed for length, most notably excising his comments on healthcare and taxes (We know it’s the Internet, but we had to shorten it up a bit. You can see or read the whole thing here.

On FOX Interactive possibly looking at job cuts:

“It’s too early to talk about job cuts. … We’ve put new management in there, they’ve been there three weeks and they’re making a close examination of it and they’ll no doubt set some new directions, strengthen other very strong parts of it, and you know, the advertising is at least double what Facebook has and it’s in pretty good shape. But there will be, I’m sure, changes with the new management.”

On Chase Carey assuming the titles of deputy chairman, president and chief operating officer July 1:
“No, we’re not making any commitments on that [being an heir apparent] at all. Chase is coming in to be my partner and right-hand, he was with us for 17 years before. I think he’s like coming home.”

Next Monday is the day when members of The Boston Globe’s biggest union will vote on concessions that the paper’s owner, The New York Times Co, says are necessary to keep the paper from closing. The public relations campaign is heating up already.

The Boston Newspaper Guild published a press release on Friday about the testimonials of 4,000 Bostonians who signed an online petition to save the Globe. Their comments are stirring, but nothing talks like money.

Let’s take a look: The New York Times says it needs $20 million in cost cuts from several Globe unions. At that point, the paper will be on track to lose only $65 million this year, not the $85 million currently projected. A smaller loss, the thinking goes, might make the paper more attractive to a buyer once the Times can rustle one up.

When we went to bed late last night, the state of play on The Boston Globe didn’t look so hot. Since then… it’s still not looking so hot.

The short story: Some of the Globe’s union appear to have reached tentative accords with the Globe and its parent company, The New York Times, which has threatened to shut down the money-losing paper if it doesn’t win $20 million in concessions. The Boston Newspaper Guild, which is on the hook for $10 million alone, said it has offered more than it has to, but it appears to not have been enough so far. The Times Co, meanwhile, said it would file a federal government notice that it intends to shut the paper. The big issue? Lifetime job guarantees that the Times wants to eliminate.

Here’s the latest from the sleepless reporters at its smaller competitor, the Boston Herald: