The Pacific Northwest Newspaper Guild has no official comment on today's meeting with P-I negotiators over the effects of a possible sale (or, far more likely, closure) of the P-I. But a P-I staffer has forwarded over an email that the guild just sent to its members describing the session—a session that appears to have resolved little.

From: XXXXX

Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 5:51 PM

To: XXXXX

Subject: Today's meeting with P-I representatives

Guild and P-I representatives began negotiations Tuesday on the effects of the possible closure of the newspaper.

No proposals were exchanged in the talks, which lasted approximately 2 1/2 hours. Negotiations will resume Friday afternoon.

In opening remarks, P-I negotiator Calvin Siemer expressed the company's interest in reaching an agreement with the Guild over the effects of the sale or closure, and said the company regards the terms in the expired contract as a guide in doing so.

The company said it soon intends to file a federally required WARN notice in anticipation of the work force reductions.

The company confirmed what previously had been stated in Hearst's announcement on Jan. 9: namely, that the P-I either would be sold, continued as a scaled-down, online-only publication, or closed entirely within 60 days.

If you've been following the P-I sale story closely, you'll remember that P-I employees are currently working under an expired union contract. Today brought a meeting between their union, the Pacific Northwest Newspaper Guild, and Hearst. It was a meeting that had originally been scheduled to negotiate a new contract—but now, obviously, involved a very different kind of discussion.

I'm still waiting to hear what transpired, but here's a question that union administrator Liz Brown told me she would be asking: Why hasn't Hearst yet filed an official "notice of closure" with the union, the mayor, and the local unemployment agency as required by federal law? Such a notice needs to be filed 60 days before an employer like the P-I shuts down, Brown said. But all Hearst has done is say publicly that the P-I is up for sale for the next 60 days and will cease printing if there's no buyer after that 60-day period ends.

The reason for the lack of a Hearst "notice of closure" could be pretty straightforward: Hearst, according to its publicly-stated plans, won't know whether it's closing the P-I until after the 60 days it originally announced (or, as of today, 57 days) pass without a buyer. But this raises a potential problem that may end up helping P-I employees. “If they let these 60 days run out and don’t sell the P-I, then they owe us another 60 days' notice as far as I’m concerned," Brown said.

You can't just stop paying employees and shut down if you haven't filed a "notice of closure," she said. So, as far as those P-I paychecks are concerned, it's possible—if Brown is correct—that they'll keep coming for another 120 days. (60 days of trying to sell + 60 days' notice of closure.)

A number of people have angrily called my attention to Seattle Times columnist Lynne Varner's comments on KUOW's Weekday last Friday. I haven't had a chance to listen to the show yet, but Stranger intern Aaron Pickus has helpfully typed up a transcript of the relevant portions, in which Varner, speaking before Hearst confirmed its sale of the P-I, appeared to suggest that champagne and dancing would be her likeliest response if a sale happened.

If you want to listen for yourself, it all starts at about 42 minutes in. Here's the transcript provided by Pickus:

Host Steve Scher: What can you tell us, David Horsey?

David Horsey, P-I editorial cartoonist: Well, before I came here I called my editor to see if there was anything new and he said, to put it diplomatically, we don't know a goddamn thing. Unfortunately, that's the situation. So if you want me to say anything for certain...I think unfortunately, I think, it's more likely than not that the basic report from KING is accurate so I talked to a couple of people to put together what is happening here. The question is a year and a half ago we were in a situation that was very different... (Describes some newspaper industry stuff at length.)

Scher: Can you share any news on the non-profit status of the Seattle Times?

Lynne Varner, Times editorial writer: I actually can't. I don't know much about that and I'm actually thinking I'll leave Dave way out there on that limb by himself.

(Laughter)

Horsey: Well, thats a fascinating limb.

Varner: I mean clearly in this competitive...this is a competitive environment and when one of your competitors looks like its going to go out of business, that's not a bad sign. So clearly the rumors are encouraging. But it's still so early. Hearst is a huge conglomerate and they've closed some magazines this year. Is this just part of that? And what does it mean in the overall big picture for Seattle? Whether we'll be a one newspaper town or actually someone will come in and buy the P-I in a fire sale because how much would the P-I go for? How much would they put it for sale? Who knows? In better times it might have been quite a bit. In times likes this, who knows. So I'm not dancing and I haven't opened up the champagne yet.