THE REST OF THE STORY

Management's recent bargaining update was an interesting piece of misdirection and blurring of the truth. Claiming that the Guild was misleading employees by not giving the "whole story," their report listed proposals to which management has agreed in the hope that bargaining unit employees would pressure the Guild to accept the current, insufficient contract proposal on the table.

We are glad that management has brought these points forward. It is unfortunate, however, that management's report did not--as they claim--give the "whole story." As so typically happens at BNA, it falls to the Guild to tell "the rest of the story."

Management has agreed to:

• a new parental leave feature that will permit employees to take up to fifteen days of leave for parenting purposes without having to use sick leave

It's about time! This Guild-proposed provision has been rejected by management numerous times. As has been shown by BNA's recent omission from Working Mothers magazine best companies list, BNA is no longer perceived as so family friendly as it once was. Where BNA once was a leader in work/life benefits, it is now a lagging follower. In a tight labor market, forward-thinking benefits such this are necessary to attract and retain the best employees. Thank goodness the Guild brought it back to the table again!

• the transfer of excess unused annual leave (use-it-or-lose-it leave) to the Guild's sick leave bank to benefit seriously ill employees who have exhausted their sick leave

BNA is finally going to give more than logistical support to the sick leave bank; but gaining this Guild-proposed provision required us to give up another benefit: the right of an employee to borrow sick leave against earned annual leave. Furthermore, the cost to the company is negligible. In transferring unused annual leave to the sick leave bank, the company is taking its annual windfall of hundreds of hours of leave--leave earned and owned by employees!--and returning it to the benefit of employees.

• a 5% increase in the Metro and parking subsidies

In an interesting shell game, BNA originally agreed to increase the parking benefit by 10 percent, or $5 a month. But when the Guild pointed out that the Metro subsidy should also be increased, management withdrew its original proposal and swapped it with one that increased both the parking and Metro subsidies by $2.50. Not too generous, especially when you consider that BNA gets a tax break for this benefit.

• increasing from 5 to 10 days the sick leave that may be taken by an employee upon the disability of a spouse

Yet another Guild proposal! This is another much needed and long overdue change that costs BNA very little. After all, sick leave must be earned before it can be used.

BNA has made NO proposals for benefit improvements during this round, only counter-proposals or rejections of Guild proposals for improvements.

The Guild has granted to management:

• a new process for promotion selection that will enable the best qualified employee to be selected, even if he or she is not the most senior

Management insisted it must have this proposal before it would consider increasing its wage proposal. Although the Guild firmly believes that removing the seniority clause from the contract is harmful to the company as well as employees, we agreed to the change on the condition that BNA increase its wage offer. Instead BNA only reshuffled its offer in an attempt to get something for nothing.

BNA recently lost $1.5 million in a discrimination case and is now being sued for $7.5 million in another discrimination case. In fact, BNA is a recognized name at the EEOC office due to the numerous complaints filed against it. (One EEO employee, after hearing that a complainant was from BNA, exclaimed, "Again?") The more objective hiring criteria are, the less chance for favoritism and discrimination. By removing its only contractually required objective hiring measure--seniority--BNA is likely to face an increase in discrimination charges.

Management also claims that "in this period of low inflation" the Guild's wage proposals are "unrealistic." That's a very interesting argument. In 1990 bargaining, when inflation was high, BNA whined that it couldn't meet the Guild's wage proposals because high inflation was driving other costs up too much. One has to wonder what level of inflation will be "just right" so the company will meet our reasonable wage proposals. What makes their argument even worse is that it is completely wrong! In fact, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on May 16 that the CPI for the first four months of 2000 shows 4.3 percent inflation, and 3 percent inflation this April over last April. Is that "low inflation"? Much as BNA would like to have its cake (and yours) and eat it too, it can't have things both ways.

Another part of the "whole story" that management conveniently forgets to tell employees is that the company is doing extremely well financially. Not only were revenues and profits up last year, but according to the most recent management committee minutes BNA is doing great so far this year. For the 1st quarter, "consolidated operating profit exceeds budget and is 10.7% above last year's comparable figure. Likewise, consolidated net income and earnings per share are tracking ahead of budget, and are 15.1% and 18.2%, respectively, higher than last year's first quarter results."

Employees are directly responsible for increasing these figures. It is not unreasonable to expect to be rewarded for our hard work and efforts during this time of prosperity, after we stuck it out through the tough, high-inflationary times with low wage increases.

Finally, employees should not be fooled by management's apparent care and concern for their well-being when it waves "warnings" about retroactivity expiring or claims that the Guild is trying to strong-arm employees about union membership.

If management is so concerned:

• Why did they twice go a week without bargaining: once when bargaining first started and once near the end?
• Why aren't they coming back to the table with a decent counteroffer? (We lowered our wage demands at the last session, but they didn't remind you of that either.)
• Why do they insist on a contract provision that tells the Guild who it can have on joint committees?
• Why didn't they point out that Guild membership is at an all-time high, with almost 50 percent of downtown employees signed up?
• Why don't they let people know that the biggest single cause of employees leaving the union is because the employees are leaving BNA (at a rate of 10 percent a year)?

Remember: Management believes wrongly that it is in its best interest to weaken the Guild as much as possible. Don't be fooled!