On this Flag Day, Cox Media Group is preparing to send advertising production jobs offshore to low-wage countries like the Philippines, according to a Dayton Business Journal article. And the company continues to insist on the power to replace Guild-represented newsroom jobs that can’t be offshored with low-paid freelancers.
The Dayton Newspaper Guild has good news to report: We won on the mileage issue.
The National Labor Relations Board has found that the Company violated federal law when it did not raise our rate to 32 cents per mile on July 1, 2008. We learned of the decision late last week. The Company has been ordered to pay employees the difference – plus interest.
At issue is section 4.01 of the posted work conditions, which absolutely could not be clearer. It states:
“Employees will be reimbursed for mileage at the rate of 29 cents per mile, or the rate generally offered to other COP newsroom employees if that rate is higher than 29 cpm.”
It’s pretty easy to understand, and it should be noted that this was the Company’s language.
When the Company’s in-house counsel informed Guild President Lou Grieco that the Company was raising the rate for the other newsrooms, he offered to bargain with the union. Grieco pointed out that, under the posted conditions, there was nothing to bargain about.
Instead of acknowledging the obvious, and honoring the provision it posted, the Company chose to fight. The Guild was forced to file an Unfair Labor Practice.
In defending the Company, the attorneys argued that this posted condition established a “waiver of Guild rights” to negotiate any proposed changes to the posted conditions, and therefore was unenforceable by the company.
So the Company’s position was: by denying Guild employees the mileage change, the Company was defending Guild members’ union rights to negotiate. It was preventing a unilateral change to working conditions by making a unilateral change to working conditions. This is Alice in Wonderland meets 1984.
Of course, what really happened was that the Company was trying to force the Guild to give more concessions to obtain a change to which the members were already legally entitled. While it is true that the company cannot enforce a posted condition that waives the Guild’s right to negotiate over discretionary changes being made by the company, there was nothing discretionary about this work rule. When the company changed its mileage rate for the non-union people, this rule required them to change it for the Guild people. The company is limited by this rule in what it can do and cannot do to the mileage rate as it relates to the Guild employees.
So now the Company must pay the difference plus interest. Add attorneys’ fees – and the Company used an expensive law firm for this case, so we’re guessing the bill will be thousands – and you’re talking real money. For what? Three cents a mile.
If the Company is going to complain about financial challenges and cite the need for staff reductions, then the litigate-at-all-cost strategy is a luxury it can no longer afford. There’s an easier and cheaper way: follow the posted conditions. Better still, complete the contract with a Guild, including a fair, impartial arbitration provision. Management needs to reconsider the cost vs. benefit of following specious, dubious legal arguments – including those about arbitration. In fact, if the mileage issue had been a grievance situation that had gone through the normal arbitration process, it probably would have been resolved quicker and certainly would have been less costly (for one thing, arbitrators generally don’t assign interest charges).
Speaking of attorneys’ fees, the DNG executive board thanks the leadership of The Newspaper Guild-Communications Workers of America. Our local got top-flight legal representation and didn’t pay a dime, because our international leadership, both TNG and CWA, approved our request for funding from the legal defense fund. It’s a huge fund, and it goes without saying: other people’s dues funded it. We are very grateful. We also thank the NLRB for taking this case to complaint and following through with its legal services in the hearing that the company demanded (which added even more to the legal costs incurred).
A lot has changed since last summer. Editorial management and Guild leadership showed, through last fall’s negotiated severance agreements, that we can work together in ways that help the Company meet its goals while protecting the basic rights of the employees. New trust has been building between the Guild and Editorial management, which is better for everyone. But while Guild leadership welcomes the cooperation, we remain committed to protecting the rights of our members.
That includes obtaining an enforceable contract with meaningful arbitration rights. As long as we’re forced to go through needless, pointless, expensive legal battles like this one, we don’t see why we shouldn’t insist on a contract with a full grievance procedure, including arbitration before a neutral party empowered to do more than just rubber-stamp any management decision.
By now, most of you have seen Kevin Riley’s email concerning layoffs. So the rumors are true.
On Friday, Kevin asked Guild President Lou Grieco for an 11:30 a.m. meeting today. Kevin and Lou spoke for about a half hour. After this initial meeting, Kevin sent out his email.
The Guild does not have any additional information about the scope of the layoffs. Kevin told Lou what he included in his email: the newsroom will lose “less than 10” positions, and two managers have been laid off.
In early September, we were given a list of the entire unit organized by job classification, in descending order of seniority. Today we received the first notification of layoffs. Under the work rules, the company has 30 days to give us a proposed list of affected employees.
We won’t know any specifics until then. The Company has not yet offered any specifics as to who will be laid off, or in what job classifications. We do not even have a specific number. Kevin told Lou that those decisions have not been made.
The Guild appreciates that the Company was forthright and up front in its discussions today. We hope that this is the approach that will be taken throughout the process to try to prevent a bad situation from getting worse through politics.
Kevin has promised that the Company is going to follow the work rules, which include provisions for staff reductions and severance pay. Basically, the company will be required to layoff in reverse order of hire by job classification. There is a provision that allows the Company to skip over people due to “special skills,” but to use that provision, the company must offer 30 days of training for the employee who was deemed not to have those skills. We do not expect this provision will be a major factor.
Our goal will be to work with the company to ensure that the work rules are followed, that the practices are consistent and fair, and that this difficult situation is handled as humanely as possible. We will also work with the company, if possible, to try to find alternatives to layoffs. Ideas from Guild members are welcome, of course. We doubt if we can find enough alternatives to prevent all layoffs, but perhaps we can reduce the scope. Every job counts.
When we know more, we will share the information. We are planning a meeting Wednesday at noon at the Dayton Area Board of Realtors to answer your questions.
This is obviously a painful difficult process for everyone. But we promise: the Guild will be watching out for your best interests. If you’ve ever doubted the importance of union representation, what happened last week to two managers should convince you otherwise. We are stronger together than as individuals. Through the Guild, you have a voice in very difficult times.
By now, many of you have seen the Oct. 16 email from Human Resources manager Tom Thompsen. The news is good: the company is offering a new, more affordable, health insurance plan for part-time employees.
This plan is considerably cheaper for the employees than the HMO, which many part-timers said they could not afford. The HMO will still be available, both for part- and full-time employees.
The Company approached Guild leaders on Oct. 15 via email. The email said that the plan would be offered to non-union part-timers, and that it would be available for Guild unit employees if the Guild wished. Guild President Lou Grieco sent an email to Thompsen, stating that the Guild had no objection to this plan being offered to Guild part-timers.
The Dayton Newspaper Guild appreciates that the company has made this move, which will benefit some of our hardest working, yet most vulnerable, employees. However, the Guild also claims this as a victory for the union.
There was really nothing new about the HMO situation — we’d known for years that it was untenable for most part-timers’ budgets. What changed was that the Guild brought the situation to the attention of the public.
There is little doubt that this was the Company’s least favorite issue, largely because it made the Company look so bad. Company negotiators made this point clear at the table throughout 2007, and other Company officials expressed it in email communications to Guild leaders.
The plan likely isn’t perfect, and its adoption doesn’t resolve every issue for part-timers, who still lack sick days, for example. But it’s a good positive step for those employees, potentially an immediate improvement for all of them. The company’s actions also show what the Guild has said all along: there are solutions available, if you are willing to work on them.
The company has clarified its position regarding how “attitude” will play a part in performance evaluations.
The company says that attitude will be a factor in performance evaluations, but it is just one factor in the process that managers say will be clearly defined. Guild leaders were assured by the company’s bargaining team that “attitude” will not equate to loyalty to one’s supervisor, as has some guild members feared.
According to the company, attitude relates to an employee’s interaction
with co-workers. The company has assured union officers that this will not be an issue for most people and that a poor score for attitude will not affect negatively anyone’s pay raise for 2008.
If you have any questions after you receive your performance evaluation, feel free to contact a Guild executive board member.
So, is it Red or Green on Fridays? The company wants employees to wear Green to honor the Company’s alleged commitment to environmentally correct policies. Of course, Guild members have been wearing Red on Fridays to show unity and support for the Guild.
Our request remains the same: Please continue to wear Red on Fridays.
The company that now pushes bus passes and car-pooling as things employees can do to make a difference is the same company that remains committed to eliminating the editorial fleet. That move ensures that many, if not most, editorial employees will have to use their own cars to do their jobs — meaning that bus passes and car pooling are out of the question.
It is the same company that remains opposed to raising the reimbursement rate above 29 cents per mile, even though the estimated cost of operating a vehicle is nearly twice that. It is the same company that tried at the bargaining table to convince Guild representatives that “free parking” is a new benefit.
Of course, the company subsidized parking in downtown for hundreds of employees, so the Company is saving money on the “free” parking as well.
Basically, the Company is trying to pass on a major business expense directly on to the employees. Then the Company wants to use those same employees in its public relations exercise concerning environmentalism.
Green instead of Red? You must be joking. Send a message: Wear red on Fridays.
But in the spirit of compromise, and concern for the environment, the Guild will have something Green for you to wear tomorrow, which you can pick up from any Guild officer.
We’re happy to report that the Guild and the Company have reached a tentative agreement on vacations. In exchange for other concessions from the Company, including an added severance benefit, we will be moving to the Company’s system of accruing vacation during the same year it is used.
It’s an important step toward the next contract, but perhaps equally important, as part of the deal, we have resolved the confusion surrounding new hires from other Cox properties, including those people transferred to the universal desk from Springfield and the Southwest Group. This has been accomplished through a side agreement reached Thursday which reads:
“Effective Jan. 1, 2008, the Company and the Guild shall enter into a new system for accruing vacation. The parties acknowledge that until January 1, 2008, employees had earned and accrued vacation in one year for use the following year.
Beginning in 2008, employees will earn vacation to use that same year. In order to provide for the most reasonable transition of all bargaining unit employees into this new system, the parties have agreed that all employees, including those who entered the bargaining unit from other Cox newspapers in 2007, shall be treated for vacation purposes as if they had earned vacation time in 2006 for use in 2007 under the system the Dayton Daily News bargaining unit had in its contract. Said employees shall be immediately eligible for any such vacation in the remaining months of 2007 and, if they have already taken vacation in 2007, they shall not be regarded as having a negative vacation balance.
The parties agree that time that would have been accrued by employees in 2007 under the old vacation system shall not apply toward vacation in 2008. A list of employees eligible for the severance shall be created by the Company and agreed to by the Guild by the end of 2007.”
The Guild appreciates the company’s willingness to settle this matter in a manner favorable to employees. This also frees up Guild and Company negotiators to focus on the other remaining issues.
If you have any questions about these vacation agreements, please see Guild President Lou Grieco, First Vice President Amelia Robinson or Treasurer Scott Elliott.
The Dayton Newspaper Guild has demanded that the Company bargain over the decision to eliminate the fleet of company cars. This was done in a letter sent to the Company on Aug. 3. We have also notified the Company that we are willing to file an Unfair Labor Practice with the National Labor Relations Board if the Company refuses to bargain over this decision.
We believe that this decision is an attempt to significantly alter working conditions and is therefore subject to bargaining. The Guild views an automobile as a necessary tool to bring stories and content to our readers, in line with other tools the company provides such as desks, chairs, phones, computers and cameras.
July 22 marked the last day any employees had use of company cars for normal work assignments. It should be noted that, as of last week, there were 13 company vehicles, all either part of the fleet or assigned to photographers, sitting in the Ludlow parking lot. Company representatives told us last week that the leases are up on all but five of them.
By requiring newsroom employees to use their own vehicles for work-related duties, the Company has significantly added to the cost of working for those employees (at a time when the Company is trying to take away longstanding benefits). This shifts onto employees all risks associated with operating a motor vehicle and the costs, defrayed only by a low 29-cent per mile reimbursement. The official 2007 IRS standard mileage rate is 48.5 cents. In March, the American Automobile Association (better known as AAA or “Triple A”) calculated the cost of owning and driving a car at 52.2 cents per mile.
By next year, it could be higher. The AAA rate was based in part on gas prices that averaged about $2.26 per gallon at the end of last year. This, of course, is an overall average. The rate will fluctuate depending on what type of vehicle you drive, and maintenance costs are affected by WHERE you drive – particularly if you drive on bad roads, or even off road, as many of our assignments can take us.
The Company has not offered to step up and help employees with this increase in the cost of working. In fact, even before the Company took back the cars, the Company tried to pass insurance costs back to employees on at least two occasions. In both cases, an employee was involved in an accident while driving a company car for company business. In both cases, the Company tried to tell the employees that their personal insurance company should be held responsible for the accident. Of course, in both cases, those insurance companies rejected that ridiculous notion, and the employees went on with their lives. But as you can see, the Company didn’t want to protect employees when it already had primary insurance on company cars, and the company surely hasn’t offered to step up to protect employees now.
It’s also interesting that the company just rolled out a Web site called “Living Green,” dedicated to environmental news and issues like carpooling and mass transit. By doing away with the pool of small, economical cars for employee use, the company also does away with the opportunity for a larger group of employees to help the environment by riding a bicycle to work, getting to the Media Center by public transportation, or carpooling with fellow employees. Actions speak louder than public relations exercises.
The loss of company cars doesn’t affect all bargaining-unit employees equally, but for our high-mileage drivers this is tantamount to a pay cut. These drivers are now subsidizing company profits using their personal vehicles, their gas, and their insurance. It’s unfair that those who take on more assignments—who literally go the farthest for the company—wind up losing the most. That’s some incentive the company is offering.
Already, the Guild is getting questions from concerned employees: What if I hit a nail and blow out a tire? What if my car breaks down and I require roadside assistance? One Company official told a group of photographers that any road emergency or property loss associated with use of a personal vehicle on the job “will be handled on a case-by-case basis.
The Guild doesn’t want wishy-washy language like that to determine whether the “case” you might find yourself in will be “determined” fairly by management. We want sound language that will clearly outline how our members will be compensated for the costs of operating a personal vehicle for work and protect them from monetary loss and personal time loss resulting from breakdown, accident, theft, damage or vandalism while on the job for Cox Ohio Publishing.
In just the short time since the company unilaterally took away cars, we’ve seen one managing editor give a less-than-definitive answer about transportation on out of town assignments, while another managing editor handed an employee the keys of an “emergency” car to cover an out of town story. It hasn’t taken long for editors to treat different employees arbitrarily regarding the use of company vehicles.
Company officials repeatedly have tried to tell us that this cost shift to the employees is negligible, because the average payout for mileage will be about $100 to $200 per employee annually. We’re guessing that “average” includes everyone in the bargaining unit, including page designers, copy editors and graphic artists who rarely travel for assignments. But for reporters, particularly but not limited to those in sports, and photographers, that cost is going to be much higher. You know how many miles it takes for you to get to $200 at the company’s rate? About 700. That’s one trip to Cleveland. Most photographers and many reporters can rack up 700 miles in two weeks.
To showcase the company’s fuzzy math, we’ve made a bumper sticker for employees. Until we have a new contract we are asking members to place the sticker on their personal vehicles driven for work and to sign the pledge posted on the Guild bulletin board. These steps are being taken to inform the company and to protect our members and their personal property where the company is unwilling.
PLEDGE:
Because I must now use my personal vehicle for Cox Ohio Publishing work I am taking these necessary steps to protect myself from any personal or monetary loss due to risk the company is transferring onto me as an employee:
• As owner of a personal vehicle, it is my sole decision who, if anyone, occupies my vehicle. That being the case, during work hours I will decide whether to transport others in my vehicle, including but not limited to, co-workers, interns, job shadows, sources, and story or photo subjects.
• If my personal auto insurance carrier increases the amount of my premiums because of my use of my personal vehicle for work purposes, I intend to seek reimbursement from the Company for the amount of the increase.
• While on assignment for Cox Ohio Publishing, I will obey all traffic rules, including those that prohibit non-emergency parking on interstate and state highways. I will park only in designated, legal parking areas.
• I will use best judgment to determine if it is reasonably safe to drive during inclement weather. I will also use my best judgment in the course of my work as to whether I am endangering myself or my personal property by traveling to and parking at a location where I or my personal vehicle may be a target for violence or vandalism.
The Dayton Newspaper Guild has filed another Unfair Labor Practice charge against the Company.
As you will recall, we already had one ULP this year, dealing with the pay grades. The new ULP, filed Wednesday, deals with three issues that are inter-related:
• the denial of night differential to those transferred from other Cox Ohio Publishing properties to the universal desk.
• the denial of vacation rights to two employees.
• perhaps most egregiously, the Company’s retaliation against those two employees whose sole sin was to alert the Guild to violations of the contract.
Let’s start at the beginning.
On June 11, a member of the universal desk told the Guild via email that the Company had started denying night differential to our new brothers and sisters who were transferred from Springfield and the Southwest group.The Company has taken a particularly ludicrous position: that a side agreement signed in March by Guild President Lou Grieco and Company attorney Brett Thurman eliminated night differential for these employees.
This side agreement, drafted by Guild attorney Julie Ford, did nothing of the kind. It set salaries for the new universal employees, most of whom received significant raises, according to a plan negotiated by Grieco and Thurman. It also acknowledged that those transferred employees were Guild members, and covered a few issues involving the new building, such as employee parking.
It did not address night differential, or seniority issues. Nor did it contain any references to changing any of the terms of the existing contract, for the transferring employees or anyone else.
In a meeting between management and Guild representatives, one Company representatives said that, despite what the contract and side agreement actually said, “in my mind” those salaries were the only compensation the Company was agreeing to pay. That’s a novel legal argument we’re more than happy to take to the National Labor Relations Board.
During that meeting, the Company also raised the specter that overtime callbacks and other provisions might not be in their “minds.” So to settle the grievance, they offered to give our new brothers and sisters overtime callbacks, but not night differential.
That’s a bit like having a burglar steal your television set, then argue he should get to keep it since he could have taken your stereo as well.
Also during that meeting, we discussed another grievance. It turns out that the employee who raised the issue of shift differential through an email to Guild officers – and copied to members of management – was told ten days later that he did not have any vacation this year, because he is new to the bargaining unit.
It’s true that the contract does not provide for vacation in the first year of employment. But nothing has ever stopped the Company from granting vacation to new hires, and the Guild has never stepped in the way of that. More importantly, the Company has a long precedent of honoring seniority whenever someone transfers in to the bargaining unit from another Cox property – so he and the other transferred copy desk employees are not new, first-year employees.
For more than 12 years, reporters and other employees have had their seniority honored when they came from Springfield and the Southwest Group. Many of those employees are still here.
We told this to the Company during that meeting. The response was that this copy editor could take vacation, but would be borrowing against next year, since he is accruing this year. Company representatives said that all of the transferees to the universal desk were being treated this way.This is simply not true. We’ve investigated. Most of the people we’ve talked with said they were told that they would get vacation benefits this year, just as if they had worked at their previous paper for the entire year. Some of them had email evidence. Not one was told anything about “borrowing” against next year’s vacation
The Company had no good answer for this situation, except to acknowledge that obviously, different people, including in editorial management and finance, were saying different things. The Company representatives stuck by their position: that all of the transfers would be treated this way. They also said that they would be notifying people to clarify the situation.
To our knowledge, they didn’t. Instead, the Company took a cue from La Cosa Nostra and retaliated, including threats against a member.
Just after the meeting, which occurred on Aug. 3, the employee who was the subject of those grievances received a phone call at his home. The caller was a manager at his former paper. That manager told the employee that he had been asked to call and to tell the employee to drop his grievance, or else some of his co-workers would “lose seniority.” The Sopranos-wannabe would not say who asked him to call, and hung up when the employee said the call was improper.
That’s pathetic, even for this Company. It’s also disgusting. And it’s also illegal.
But the Company wasn’t done yet.
The Guild expected questions from copy editors about the Company’s stance on vacation seniority, since the Company was supposed to notify them. We never heard from the copy editors. When we asked, several have told us that the company never sent any notice to them.
Instead, we heard from a reporter — and you’ll never guess whom they picked.
As many of you will recall, we had a grievance earlier this year involving a female employee who was being underpaid according to the terms of our agreement. It took several months, but we finally resolved it in terms favorable to the employee.
On Aug. 6, the next working day after our meeting, that female employee – whose name was brought up in the Aug. 3 meeting by management — was told by her boss that she would not get vacation this year because she is in her first year of the Guild contract. Never mind that another manager had already told her months ago that her seniority from another Cox paper would give her a certain number of weeks this year.
This is unbelievable.
So if you’re keeping score, the company is once again trying to make unilateral changes – in both night differential and vacation seniority – without bargaining. The Company is also threatening members – an illegal tactic we will not stand for. In fact, if you know of any attempt to intimidate our members, regardless of how small, please notify a member of the Guild’s executive board. We’re sure the NLRB will be interested.
Of course, a decent company would fire both the manager who threatened an employee and whoever put him up to it. (Just for the record, that manager was seen in our building, talking to our managers, just one day before the incident).
We recognize what the Company is doing: trying to intimidate workers, trying to create divisions within the bargaining unit, trying to target rank-and-file employees to gain advantage at the bargaining table. We have news for the Company: It isn’t going to work.
By the time you see this blog entry, you may already have gotten the letter from Human Resources Vice President Emily E. Chambers, announcing the changes to paid time off policies that have been rumored for weeks. (If you haven’t seen the letter, click the “continued” link at the bottom to read it.)
So yes, it’s true. A little more than a year after the company snatched four weeks of paid vacation from its employees without offering any compensation, the company is once again taking away from the employees.
But not you. You’re in a bargaining unit. Like the vacation policy, these new policies cannot be implemented without bargaining with the union. This was acknowledged last week by company negotiators, and in a letter to bargaining unit employees from Editor Kevin Riley. That’s the good news.
The bad news is that benefits raiding is addictive. Rather than trying to increase profits by investing in the online division or adding universal desk staff to produce better products, the company finds it easier to simply steal employee benefits. Maybe that 35 percent profit margin could again be in reach. Just shift costs to your employees, take their benefits, and away they go!
So yes, look for more of this in the future. This is precisely why the Guild is here: to protect your interests. And it’s precisely why every newsroom employee should join with us. Your time, energy and financial support will strengthen our ability to keep this from ever happening to us. The letter speaks for itself. The company wants to make Martin Luther King Day a paid holiday (something that should have been done two decades ago), but only if they can, at the same time, snatch away four personal absence days and limit sick leave to 10 days annually.
Of course, the company will try to get us to agree to these changes at the bargaining table. We’ll look at whatever they offer and will compromise when necessary to get a good deal for our members. Still, we’re just dying to see what they’ll offer up to make the loss of four paid days off seem palatable.
The letter makes the point that this is being done for standardization across the newspaper division. Obviously, not every paper has what we have, but the company has decided to reduce our benefits, as opposed to raising those at some smaller paper in Texas or North Carolina. It’s also interesting that takeaways from employees are so often done in the name of “standarization,” but at the same time, Cox Ohio is glad to make exceptions to the larger company processes when it suits its purposes.
“The benefits package offered by Cox Ohio is one of the factors that make us an employer of choice in the communities we serve,” the letter states. It does not explain how lowering benefits based on what is done in other states will help us stay an “employer of choice” here. The reason for that omission is obvious: the company’s rationale is nonsense.
And there should be no surprise that the letter includes the notion that standardization will “allow us to be cost effective.” While company officials shift major costs to us – say, the elimination of company cars — they take away benefits, all in the name of being cost effective.
Benefits raiding is now a way of life at Cox Ohio Publishing. Not long ago, you could still find employees stating with sincerity that “this is a good company” that takes care of its workers. No one is saying that now. If employees seem more cynical about the company’s motives, perhaps that’s because the company has become more cynical about everything else.
Dear (employee name here),
On January 1, 2008, Cox Ohio Publishing will implement policy changes that impact paid time of. These revised policies are being implemented throughout the Cox Newspapers Division in an effort to standardize our business practices across all Cox newspapers. The new policies will become effective for other papers in the Cox Newspaper division as those papers implement SAP in their organizations.
The intent of this communication is to let you know about the changes and how the changes affect you. We have summarized the significant changes below.
As we look at paid time off or leave policies, the following changes will be effective 1-1-08:
–Holidays: We will now have seven (7) holidays with the addition of Martin Luther King Day.
–Personal Day Off: A “Floater” day off can be scheduled with your manager’s approval.
–Bereavement Leave: Up to three days with pay will be given to attend services of an immediate family member.
–Sick Days: If an employee needs to be away from work due to their own illness or the illness of an immediate family member, Sick Days can be used. Employees will have ten (10) Paid Sick Days to use in a calendar year after the first year of service. In the first year of hire, employees will have a prorated number of days available, up to five (5) Sick Days. These days cannott be arried over into the next year nor will unused sick days be paid out. The company may request a doctor’s note to verify eligibility for sick pay.
–Extended Sick Leave (Short Term Disability):
+There will be a ten (10) working day waiting period prior to the start of paid time off for an extended sick leave.
+There will be a maximum of 26 weeks allowed for the extended leave, including the waiting period.
+Extended sick leave will be paid at 100%, 70% or will be unpaid based on the employee’s years of service. Each employee will receive personalized information about how extended sick leave applies to them in the coming weeks.
–Personal Absence days (PA Days): No employee (Exempt or Non Exempt) will have PA Days.
–Overtime Policy:
+Overtime will be based solely on time actually worked vs. time paid.
+Overtime for eligible employees (part-time and full-time) begins for time worked after 40 hours in one work week.
The benefits package offered by Cox Ohio is one of the factors that makes us an employer of choice in the communities we serve. Standardization acrooss the division will allow us to be cost effective yet still continue to support the needs of our employees. During the coming months, Human Resource representatives will hold several informational meeting times for employees at all locations designed to address questions employees may have pertaining to these policies. Please feel free to contact your manager, your HR representative, or the HR information line 937-225-9777 if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Emily E. Chambers,
Vice President, Human Resources
Cox Ohio Publishing