The news in local news yesterday was dominated by the sudden layoffs announced at the Advertiser. It didn’t take long for the word to spread around town and for the first breaking news to be posted to both Advertiser and Star-Bulletin web sites.

According to the S-B this morning, the cuts include “54 positions, or about 9 percent of the work force, including 45 to 46 union positions.”

KHON’s Gina Mangieri reported:

The move came on the same day paper owner Gannett announced a 36 percent hit to profits. [BUT] A corporate spokesperson told KHON2 no other Gannett papers announced layoffs in response and that the Honolulu Advertiser made a local decision.

Okay, I added that editorial “But” to emphasize that, at least according to Gannett, the cuts were a local decision. Mangieri’s extra effort gave an extra punch to her reporting.

One reader quipped: “”Whenever a Gannett honcho begins a sentence with ‘aloha,’ it’s a good time to head for the hills.”

There are two ways to frame these cuts. One is the larger newspaper industry woes, but the other is the labor problems here at the Advertiser which is one of the last Gannett newspaper with strong unions representing most of its workforce in the newsroom as well as in sales, production, and distribution.

This prompted one former reporter to offer an extended comment:

As far as I know, there is no way Dick Adair would be at the bottom of the seniority list in the newsroom, yet KHON is reporting he is on the “cut list”. Since the Tiser union contract calls for consultation before layoffs as well as layoffs by seniority, the company is violating the contract in two places.

Section 4(a): “In case of layoff, or recall after such layoff, length of continuous services with the Employer shall govern where employees are competent to perform the job.” Obviously, the company knows this provision is in the contract; suggesting otherwise is a waste of time. The contract also says: “The Employer shall notify the Guild three weeks in advance of such layoff…..” The company knows this provision and is choosing to violate it for the moment.

Why? All of this is just heavy tactical maneuvering amid labor contract negotiations. The union likely will grieve against Adair’s layoff, unless Adair consents to being laid off, and get him reinstated. I’m also going to guess that the three other laid-off people in the Tiser newsroom also have seniority over others, so they will file grievances and be reinstated as well, assuming they don’t go quietly. So, in other words, no layoffs in the Tiser newsroom ……. for the moment.

But the Tiser gets to send a clear message to the staff that they can and will lay people off if the staff does not cooperate during negotiations. This is a perfect bargaining tactic. The Tiser can scare the shit out of the newsroom and the entire company without actually touching the news staffing. Unless Adair actually wants to leave his well-paying job, I will bet you will still see his cartoons in the Tiser a year from now. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong.

Regardless, Wayne Cahill at the News Guild needs to head to the National Labor Relations Board office tomorrow morning and file charges against the Tiser and Gannett. This is bad-faith bargaining and union intimidation. Anything less from the Guild will be sad, in my view. Gannett has finally taken the gloves off at the Advertiser. Time for a good fight!

Other news is the back-and-forth over whether the anti-rail initiative can qualify to appear on the November General Election ballot.

Yesterday it was reported that the city clerk has taken the position that it cannot appear on the general election ballot because a reference in the petition to being voted on in “a special election” precludes adding the measure for the General Election.

Unfortunately, although there was lots of he said-she said, there wasn’t much light shed on the issue. I just went back to look at the Stop Rail Now petition itself. I’m not a fan of this initiative, but I have to say that it looks to me like the city’s position is wrong.

Here’s a link to the petition which has been circulating for signatures. The ballot question itself appears in bold and contains no reference to a special election.

The question is simply worded:

SHALL AN ORDINANCE BE ADOPTED TO PROHIBIT TRAINS AND RAIL TRANSIT IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU?

WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, AS DULY REGISTERED VOTERS IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTENT OF THIS PETITION, PROPOSE AN ORDINANCE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE MANNER SET FORTH: 1. TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF TRAINS OR RAIL TRANSIT IN ANY MASS TRANSIT SYSTEM WITHIN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU; AND 2. TO BE EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UPON APPROVAL.SHALL AN ORDINANCE BE ADOPTED TO PROHIBIT TRAINS AND RAIL TRANSIT IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU?

The special election reference appears in an introductory sentence clearly separate from “the question”.

The following question is being submitted to the People of the City and County of Honolulu to be voted upon at a special election

Here’s what the City Charter has to say, according to the version on the city’s web site:

(As of February 20, 2001) Section 3-404. Submission of Proposal to Electors —

1. For General Elections. Any petition for proposed ordinance which has been filed with the council at least ninety days prior to a general election and which has been certified by the clerk, shall be submitted to electors for the aforementioned general election.

2. For Scheduled Special Elections. If any petition for proposed ordinance is filed at least ninety days before a scheduled special election within the city and which has been certified by the clerk, it shall be submitted to the electors for the aforementioned special election.

3. For Initiative Special Elections. A special election for an ordinance by initiative power shall be called within ninety days of filing of the petition if signed by duly registered voters equal in number to at least fifteen percent of the votes cast for mayor in the last regular mayoral election, and if such petition specifies that a special election be called; provided that if the clerk certifies less than fifteen percent but at least ten percent, the proposed ordinance shall be submitted at the next general election or scheduled special election. No special initiative election shall be held if an election is scheduled within one hundred eighty days of submission of the proposal.

4. Adoption by the Council. If the council introduces and adopts after three separate readings, including a public hearing, the proposed ordinance which was the basis for a petition on or before ten days prior to date of publication of the proposed ordinance as required in this charter, then the proposed ordinance need not be submitted to the electors. (Petition No. 17 (1982); 1992 General Election Charter Amendment Question No. 32A( 7))

Since the actual question presented on the anti-rail petition does not reference a special election, the city’s concern seems a red herring. The Charter seems clear. “Any petition for proposed ordinance which has been filed with the council at least ninety days prior to a general election” should go on the ballot once sufficient signatures have been certified.

It’s not that hard to give people the primary information instead of relying wholly on the back and forth of rival group representatives. Why don’t editors demand it and reporters routinely do it?

Matt Pulle of the Nashville Scene muses over highs and lows of that city’s Gannett paper, including a breaking news item on a hot July day referring to a forecast snowfall.