Comments on: Why was Dan Totten ousted?

By: A Globie

A Globie — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:05:05 +0000

Who are these people commenting on the Globe union’s situation? Are they members of the Guild? This is an internal union matter. It’s not subject to the knee-jerk opinions of anonymous members of the public who know none of the details of this private business. I realize that anything that goes on at the Globe is going to be news, but come on, folks, get the facts before you mouth off.
I DO happen to be a member of the Boston Newspaper Guild, and I signed both petitions to recall and remove Dan Totten as our union president. I did so because Dan’s leadership during this year’s contract negotiations was extremely poor and did not serve the best interests of the majority of members. He appeared to be negotiating with a secret agenda of protecting the interests of a small number of union members while ignoring the wishes and needs of the majority. He frequently either ignored communications from members or became defensive and combative with members whose opinions he disliked. He attempts to “rally” the union members consisted of expressing his personal anger at tactics of the Globe/Times negotiators rather than communicating matters of actual substance that mattered to anyone in the union.
I don’t think anyone blames him for the kind of contract we ended up with. But he is very much to blame for prolonging the process, egging members into voting no on the first negotiated deal, and bringing on the ruinous 23 percent pay cut. (Other Globe unions negotiated quickly and their presidents told members to vote yes because it was the best they could get.) I give Dan credit for getting the company back to the table to re-negotiate, but all he accomplished there was to undo the damage he had done. Yet, still, he tried to sink the second contract vote — fortunately, most members knew better by then.
That’s why I — and I presume why other union members — signed the petitions to to recall him. Dan’s response to this effort, by the way, was to call it illegitimate, to raise objections to the manner and style in which it was done, and to brush off all the members’ criticisms. So, the whole petition process was done a second time, making sure to strictly follow the union bylaws. The petition got more than enough signatures, and the organizers were ready to proceed — until the trial put that effort on hold.
Throughout the petition process, the union board had steadfastly supported Dan and opposed the recall petition. Then, suddenly, the worm turned when Dan flouted his fellow officers’ authority and signed that check. The other union officers apparently realized that they had a fiduciary responsibility to take action, and they did.
The recall effort and the trial had nothing to do with each other, except that both were the result of Totten’s obstinate, arrogant, uncooperative, and uncommunicative behavior. Dan might have been able to dodge the recall effort — who knows? — but by signing that check, he gave the board, as well as a majority of the members, a clear issue to act upon.
I have to add: I have nothing against Dan personally. I doubt many people do. I wasn’t on the jury, didn’t take any part in the trial, and was not an organizer of the recall effort. I wish him well, and hope he finds a path to recovery from his destructive behavior patterns. This is all business — he’s just not the right person to lead our union.

By: Dan Kennedy

Dan Kennedy — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:53:28 +0000

@Bill S: This has nothing to do with the Globe. The Guild is an entirely separate operation, and in fact the Globe isn’t the only unit in the Boston branch.

By: Bill S

Bill S — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:51:53 +0000

They are still using checks, not direct deposit?–no wonder the Globe is losing $ like crazy. Direct deposit saves the company tons of money, and avoids this whole “signature” thing! This is so telling about both the Globe and the union and where they are stuck at.

By: Dan Kennedy

Dan Kennedy — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:28:46 +0000

Disappointed: Tell you what — let’s split the difference. I was offended by his comment. I am an unpaid blogger who tries to bang out an observation or two in between classes, grading, advising students, research and other things I’m supposed to be doing. You take it for what it’s worth. Anyone who thinks I’m supposed to walk away from my day job to go on an unpaid reporting mission really hasn’t given any thought to what it is I do or to the purpose of this blog.

But I’ll grant you that I shouldn’t have called him an idiot.

By: Disappointed

Disappointed — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:27:02 +0000

Dan. To see you use the word “idiot” is very disappointing. You yourself have commented on the tone of comment boards. The person did not make any personally offensive comments about you in his/her request to have you do some digging. Not sure why you felt the need to go there. It hurts your credibility.

By: Newshound

Newshound — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 23:43:21 +0000

Thanks Dan. Read it. Still sounds spooky. A non-story some say? When the Boston Globe professionals hold a Kangaroo Court with a guilty verdict of $254? And now a fine?

This is not to allege that the union is dissatisfied and as such shouldn’t be entitled to make a change, or that there isn’t some minor infraction or flaw on Mr. Totten’s part, but his job and role even if not performed to the excellence desired by some or many union members, was most likely quite stressful and occupying earlier this year and most likely beyond the point of coming out fair and square within $254.

It seems that with such a major story and number of events that surrounded Mr. Totten and the union’s request to take a $20 million cut earlier this year, that the issue of $254 by comparison is a story, too, because now the integrity of either the union, Mr. Totten or both are on the line. To me that’s ironic, and news.

By: Dan Kennedy

Dan Kennedy — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:48:36 +0000

A more interesting story is the rift that Totten helped foster between editorial and advertising/marketing/circulation.

Agreed! That’s a great story. And I hope someone does it.

But Totten’s ouster is hardly a non-story.

By: As the Globe Turns

As the Globe Turns — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:39:48 +0000

Dan, this is a non-story for lots of reasons, the least of which is that there were at least two separate pushes to recall Totten for his stunning mishandling of the union negotiations and inexcusable lack of communication.

The union trial just expedited the process.

He was widely seen as more of a hindrance than a truly effective leader, more of a blowhard than a negotiator. Whether he had unspoken motives for sticking to such a hard line — at the likely expense of the contract’s final terms — will likely never be heard.

A more interesting story is the rift that Totten helped foster between editorial and advertising/marketing/circulation.

By: Dan Kennedy

Dan Kennedy — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:59:07 +0000

Newshound: I’m remaining neutral, but you should read what Maria Cramer had to tell Adam Reilly — not just the excerpt I quoted, but the whole thing. Something to think about.

By: Newshound

Newshound — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 21:57:14 +0000

It seems apparent they just wanted Totten’s dismissal.

Regardless of the signature on the paycheck, if it was fulfilling a union liability, and the law, to pay an employee in a timely manner, so what. I know, rules are rules.

And, $254 for an executive – - – I know, inappropriate charges are a violation – but were these discretionary, work related gray area charges? A hair cut, a necktie – that’s a violation – discretionary office supplies – - – that means they were trying to bag him.

Without seeing the charge slips and knowing the whole story, we don’t know the story. Us curious types would like to know.

Mr. Totten – we’re all ears here!