Online subscriber? Please Log In
  

Need Help? | Forgot Your Password?

Union pulls pickets, puts faith in talks

Apr 21, 2012 | 7 Comments


By Molly Walker
Of the News-Register


Only online subscribers may access this article. Subscribe online by clicking here. Already a subscriber, please .

Would you like to comment on this article?

Only online subscribers may comment on articles. Click here to see how you can subscribe.
Already a subscriber, please

Note: Some articles do not accept comments at all.

Comments

09:26 pm - Sat, April 21 2012
MC said:
That seems like a big paycheck to me?????
07:32 am - Sun, April 22 2012
Michael Tubbs Sr said:
MC,

That would depend on how you gauge the worth/value of an employee.

10:31 am - Sun, April 22 2012
op91 said:
Again the author of this article got it wrong. the normal shift for most of the mill is 12 hours on a rotating 4on 4 off work week And normal workers ie utilities and crane operators do not make millwright wages.also if you think that's a lot don't forget taxes insurance and dues. Funny how again they want to take one of the highest paying jobs and make it out like we all get that kind of pay.
10:55 am - Sun, April 22 2012
sbagwell said:
Give us some credit, op91.
We did not choose which salary to report. A particular millworker came to us with his pay stub.
He told us he was a millwright, ranking second on the pay scale only to electricians, and we reported that in the story. So there is no way we were trying to suggest everyone makes that.
The point was that even one of the highest pay employees at the mill wasn't losing as much on strike as the company was claiming. It would have been much less effective had we used the example of a lower-paid employee. That would have left open the possibility that higher-paid employees were, indeed, making as much, thus losing as much, as the company claimed.
Our effort was to cast doubt on a company claim, at the behest of a striking worker, and somehow you find bias the other direction in that. Sorry, but that's just not a supportable assertion.
Steve Bagwell, Managing Editor
01:40 pm - Sun, April 22 2012
Kona said:
I would guess that the $357 per day figure was the total compensation (rather than "wages") which would include benefits. There was most likely a miscommunication. Regardless, it was a difficult amount for employees to absorb.
09:23 am - Mon, April 23 2012
sbagwell said:
Kona:
That's our best guess as well. However, it remains only a guess.
The company communicates almost exclusively through "public statements," which it issues whenever it is so moved. We've had no luck getting an explanation of the figure in the face of criticism.
We are doing our best with what we have to work with.
Steve
09:56 am - Mon, April 23 2012
Obie said:
Glad to hear the union got rid of their president. Seems he was doing what's good for himself as union president and not what's best for the workers he represents. I bet a lot of people out there wish they made 1256 per week in these tough times!

© 1999- News-Register Publishing | © The Associated Press
The News-Register and NewsRegister.com are owned and operated by News-Register Publishing Co., P.O. Box 727, McMinnville, OR 97128.
All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Web design & powered by LVSYS