Fairness and Trust

Tribune says The Sun must have "pay for performance" in its Advertising, Maintenance and Editorial departments to improve our work. Chief negotiator Howard Weinstein mocks The Guild's desire to keep the existing system, failing to tell us how the Tribune plan would work and denying obvious problems with it.

"What's unfair," Weinstein says, "is a system that treats everyone the same."

Hey, great theory: Reward people according to the quality of their work.

But theory and reality differ, don't they? Having worked for another Tribune paper, I assure you they can when it comes to management judging work and worth.

For a "pay for performance" plan to work fairly, first of all it must be on top of fair, general increases for all employees and have these elements:

1. Established criteria, known to all, preferably with quantifiable standards.
2. Consistent use of standards that are appropriate to each and all.
3. Accurate, informed appraisals of employees' work.
4. Confidence that individuals, groups and departments are treated fairly.
5. Subject to dispute resolution.

So, what do we have from Tribune less than a week before our contract runs out?

1. No established criteria.
2. An existing system of "annual" evaluations that sometimes don't get done for years at a time.
3. Supervisors who don't necessarily see staffers' work.
4. A history of favoritism toward individuals, groups and departments.

We don't know the theory behind the Tribune system, but we can guess the reality:

Someone in management, who might not be familiar with our work, will somehow judge it and decide what individuals are paid. This will take far more time and thought than has been spent to help us to see, through annual evaluations, what's expected of us and how we might improve our work.

Is there any reason not to expect "stars" and favored departments to get preferential treatment when shares of the money pool are divvied out?

What's to keep Tribune from withholding raises to try to drive out individuals and to break up The Guild? We've already seen an attempt during this bargaining period to tear Advertising and News apart - and Maintenance didn't even rate a mention.

I worked at the Tribune paper in Fort Lauderdale (from which scabs are being sent) for five years. One year, right after Jan. 1, everyone began getting incredibly negative annual evaluations. Loyal workers who had never gotten a bad review in their lives were being ripped. It was as subtle as being run over by a van of "replacement workers" and for some people, probably as painful.

By mid-February we had figured out how to beat this. My supervisor, a decent guy who hadn't written my review and admitted that it wasn't fair, let me rewrite mine. I quit a few months later; not long after, so did my embarrassed supervisor. That was 15 years ago. What more devious techniques might Tribune have developed since then to attack our work and worth?

To accept this "pay for performance" plan, we must trust Tribune. Do you?

- Wayne Countryman