FFWD Weekly
Copyright © 2000. All Rights Reserved

City by Ryan Stutt On June 30, the Calgary Herald strike ended after 236 days. It was a long and bitter dispute, and few strikers seem happy about the way it ended. "It's not a very satisfactory resolution," says Andy Marshall, head of the CEP (Communication, Energy and Paperworkers Union) local representing the striking journalists. "It's not a very satisfactory way to end a strike." The striking journalists were faced with a tough choice: Option A – decertify the union and take a generous buyout package of four weeks pay for every year of service with a minimum 13 weeks and a maximum of 68 weeks. Those who wanted to continue working at the paper could return, under new working conditions outlined in a letter from editor-in-chief Peter Menzies. Option B – continue to try for a first contract at the next negotiations in July. Out of the 93 eligible members, 89 voted – 68 per cent of them opted for the buyout package. "Everyone was eligible for that 13 weeks (severance pay). There are protections for people going back, but of course there is no local and there is no collective agreement," says Marshall. "So it is bittersweet." The reasons most decided to take the buyout, according to Marshall, are numerous. So much so that it's a wonder that the vote wasn't unanimous. Marshall says the problem with pursuing a first contract was that the Calgary Herald unofficially gave the union ultimatums on the remaining four issues of contention – the paper would only go so far on each, and no further. Presumably it didn't strengthen the union's resolve to be told that their contract would be on the company's terms. Another factor, he says, was that the Herald informed the strikers that it had restructured the newsroom – there are roughly 95 positions available for journalists and over 40 of those were already filled by staff that didn't go on strike, had crossed the picket line or were hired during the dispute. Alberta labour laws, while weak, do state that striking workers are entitled to jobs once the strike is over. But there was an uncertainty within the union that there would be jobs for all. Marshall says the paper didn't give the union any assurances of job security, even if they signed a collective agreement and went back to work. So, although the paper was obligated to take the strikers back on, the math just didn't work out. Someone was going to have to go, one way or another. Restructuring is a grey area when it comes to strikes. The issue could eventually be argued in front of the Labour Relations Board, but if the Herald's newsroom restructuring held up, which was the worst case scenario for the union, it could have strikers losing their jobs anyway – minus the buyout. Most strikers didn't see much point in going back to work when they weren't sure who would be kept and who would be tossed. The issue of what to do with the 40 extra employees was seen as yet another fight that the union wasn't sure it could win. Marshall also acknowledges that the union's numbers had been slowly dwindling in the past months, as more and more people grew fed up with the dispute and decided to find work outside of Calgary. Yet another factor contributing to the strikers’ decision was the paper's settlement with the other two striking Herald unions in June, which weakened their bargaining position even more. As well, Marshall says there was a window in November that would allow for the decertification of the union. So, rather than suffer "a death of a thousand cuts," as he puts it, the majority voted to end the strike now, with at least something going their way. "Many of our members were already telling us to cut our losses with this ruthless company, who clearly had no intention of giving an inch," says Marshall. "After eight months people were simply ready to walk away rather than have anything to do with this company." The result, he adds, will be a poorer paper. "...they’ve lost 60 or 70 or more experienced journalists, people also who cared very much about the community," Marshall explains. "It seems that the company has learned little from the strike, from the way (publisher Dan) Gaynor spoke, certainly. He spoke of the great journalistic triumphs – well, we’ll see." So, the strikers who took the buyout package will go on to find work elsewhere, but what about those who do go back? After eight months on the picket line, it’s hard to just head back into the newsroom empty handed. "It all feels like I did all that for nothing," says Naomi Lakritz, one of the returning strikers. "I'm so bitter, I think the scabs had the right idea – look out for yourself, look out for your own interests." The union did construct a back to work protocol to protect the returning employees from unlawful firings and possible discrimination. Unfortunately, it comes as little comfort to the returning strikers. "What were the rest of us walking the picket line for eight months for?" says Lakritz, who is critical of the senior employees who ran the bargaining committee. "To line their pockets? We thought we were doing it for a contract." While it's a hard pill to swallow for some, Marshall insists it was the best that could have come from the situation. "Everyone ended up, if they wanted it, with some severance (pay)," he says. "Money doesn't compensate, but it helps people get on with their lives." According to Marshall, there are 16 strikers who have signed back on with the Herald so far. Whether or not more will return is anyone's guess, but those who are going back are doing so waving a white flag. "We strikers who are returning are very, very tired," says Lakritz. "We just want to get back to our jobs, put this behind us and get on with producing the quality work that we always have for the Herald. And we hope that the Herald appreciates our intentions in return."

| Back To This Issue Table of Contents | Back To Main Index |