What did newspaper division chief Bob Dickey (left) mean when he told the unit's approximately 30,000 employees earlier this week: "We will institute an involuntary staff reduction of approximately 10% by the first week of December."Well after Corporate dropped that layoff bombshell, many of you are still asking an essential question: "For the 9999th time," one reader pleaded yesterday. "WHICH IS IT??? 10% FEWER EMPLOYEES OR 10% PAYROLL REDUCTION??? Anyone? Please?"
I now think Corporate intends to whack 10% of payroll, rather than going after 3,000 jobs -- my initial conclusion when I began posting early Tuesday afternoon. I reach that new conclusion after recalling this reader tip, two weeks before; it warned of a range of expense cuts under consideration, all in percentages.
Based on payroll, Gannett could get to its targeted savings with less than 3,000 layoffs. All it need do is target higher-paid (translation: older, more experienced) employees. That's likely how the Detroit Free Press and affiliates reached their target of 150 buyouts in July -- with only 116 employees.
Confusing memo, without clarification
In hindsight, I think Dickey simply put out a poorly worded memo, one ripe for misinterpretation. Since then, official Gannett spokeswoman Tara Connell has done little to clarify the confusion. Seeking damage control, according to one blogger, Connell told Bloomberg News, Reuters, MarketWatch, and anyone else (except, of course, me) who'd listen that the final number of jobs cut will be "substantially'' lower than 3,000. Problem is, she wouldn't say how much lower.
Early reports from the field have only compounded the problem. Indianapolis Star Publisher Michael Kane reportedly told employees that his paper could lose 95 workers -- about 9% of its workers. Since then, other readers have told me that one newspaper in the South, and another in a Western state, also are considering cuts equal to about 10% of workers -- not payroll.I have little hope Connell will address this vital question further. I asked her for clarification soon after Dickey's memo became public. More than three days later, I'm still waiting.
Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write gannettblog[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the green sidebar, upper right.
[Image: today's Star, Newseum]
Quick. Someone put a pencil to how much Gannett is spending (in staff hours) to orchestrate this layoff. Don't you think that in the end, they'll just lay off the ones they've been targeting all along.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, but this is becoming such a joke I could cry. Why can't this company put out correct information and stick to it. Now we have alarmed employees who may have nothing to worry about, and set off rumor mills across every GCI property. If Tara only did her job and responded to simple questions as a public relations person is paid to do, this would not be necessary.
ReplyDeleteWhat we also need to know from Tara is if it is a 10 percent cut across-the-board. Is it just employees to be cut, or are expenses also being cut? Is the 10 percent current payroll, or unfilled positions? Are the non-payroll budget lines also cut meaning less expense budget to travel to local sports games, and overtime? Can the newspaper make its 10 percent goal by eliminating just high-paid employees, or is it FTEs?
ReplyDeleteAsk your publisher. More likely to get a straight answer for your paper than from corporate.
ReplyDeleteOurs straight out told the entire staff that there is no number yet. She's been in the office 12-14 hour days this past week. Even though I'll be on the list, I empathize with her on this.
We're past weeding out the non-performers and the people nobody likes. Every cut now means people that did a good job are gone, and our customers get less- readers and advertisers.
7:34 a.m., I was laid off in August and I take issue to being characterized as a "non-performer" or someone "nobody likes." My performance reviews and the 12-hour days I worked made no difference. My position was cut because this company is being managed into the ground. Have a little more compassion. I feel very badly for my former colleagues, especially those who won't get much severance, have families and have the holidays coming.
ReplyDeleteSome people at my site seem to think that each paper is being asked to cut 10 percent of its payroll or workforce, whichever it is. But my interpretation is that the 10 percent figure refers to the entire division and that the actual figure at individual sites will vary.
ReplyDeleteWe have not heard any specific numbers yet at my site in the South, nor any rumors, which is a bit odd. No clue how this will all shake out.
Since this is an issue affecting the entire news industry and not just Gannett, one of the things we really ought to be talking about is the real problem we're going to have in this country real soon -- a weak news media that does not have the resources to investigate stories and hold governments and corporations accountable.
ReplyDeleteI know we are all (rightly) concerned about paying our bills, but if I were a politician or CEO I'd be jumping for joy right now. Fewer reporters making fewer inquiries into what I do. And since all these lost reporting and editing jobs are not shifting to other media (like the Web), we're headed for the first age in America (in a long time) to feature such a weak media.
And please don't tell me that Blogger Susie Q is going to do a quality job of reporting, or that crowd sourcing will pick up the slack. I read a bunch of local bloggers who cover the county I live in, and without exception their content is c-r-a-p. It is poorly written, devoid of context, alarmingly incomplete and rife with their own opinions.
This is the real tragedy of this mess: An America that's more primed than ever to be without one of its most important institutions.
Re: 9:48
ReplyDeleteCouldn't have said it better myself. Corporate journalism is ruining the watchdog role of the press as greed has replaced the truth as that which is most important. Shareholders don't a give a rats butt about news (especially news outside of where they live -- why would a shareholder in New York remotely care about what happens in Wisconsin?) and care only about getting a return on their investment. In the end, this country will have no one to blame but itself when we all salute the next fuhrer.
A former colleague of mine, who works for a Gannett newspaper, sent an email to Mr. Dickey on this very subject. Dickey's response indicated that it was up to individual publishers how they achieve the 10 percent goal. This suggests to me that it's a monetary goal. It also tells me that there will be an unfair distribution of the number of jobs cut.
ReplyDeleteIt is not a problem facing the entire newspaper industry. The editor of the Miami Herald this week told his staff there would be no more layoffs. They had two rounds of layoffs earlier this year and south Florida's real estate market is still in the tank. There are other ways of savings other than cutting staff.
ReplyDeleteSeems other comapnies are cutting costs/staff based on a vision and goal. Those are the ones that are going to survive.
ReplyDeleteRe: Anonymous 7:34
ReplyDeleteYou're right about being careful with labels. For the last round of cuts, we were already low on staff, and open positions weren't considered part of the equation. So we did lose some people who won't be missed much, but we also lost some great, positive, talented people who knew their jobs. Every cut is closer to the bone.
Speaking of weeding out non-performers, my vote is to eliminate do-nothing, say-nothing Tara. Dickey is taking emails and responding, so what use is the corporate press officer?
ReplyDeleteHere's my prediction for the next year:
ReplyDelete-1 expanded USAT print edition.
-4 or 5 regional dailies.
-0 local print editions.
I think Gannett will beef up USAT staff, keep the regional dailies at current levels and eliminate all but a few paraprofessionals who will post press releases, advertorial copy, obits and other local tidbits. I honestly believe Gannett doesn't get the local local news concept and just how popular and valuable it is. But, gathering it it so very expensive.
This will be a big victory for local governments officials and small town crooks.
Doesn't matter if it's 10 percent of dollars or people, it still needs to be done.
ReplyDeletePeople are still being paid as if Gannett was making boatloads of money. Those days are over. Sure, it was great when the gravy was flowing, but now that it's not, please. People are making six figure salaries with 5 or 6 weeks of vacation a year. It's nonsense. I would like to see corporate ask for voluntary pay cuts vs. involuntary layoffs. The people that are still making money like it was the 1980s are the ones that should step to the plate and say I'm willing to take a pay cut if it will mean others get to keep their peanut-paying jobs.
5 or 6 weeks of vacation a year? Far as I know, Gannett tops out at 4 weeks.
ReplyDeleteNot so. At my site, non-union tops out at five weeks, and union at six weeks.
ReplyDelete5 weeks in Westchester, too.
ReplyDelete5 weeks in APP
ReplyDeleteI'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that Gannett won't target "higher paid, older more experienced workers" for a good reason - class action law suit. You can bet your breakfast that litagators are watching how this round of lay-offs closely for any pattern that could spawn such a suit - race, gender or age. And that would be a PR nightmare for an industry already reeling.
ReplyDeleteManagement told us the last lay-offs were based strictly on years of service, which came down from corporate as being the most legally defensible.
Gannett can't go back in time and reverse long-standing HR patterns.
ReplyDeleteAnon@9:48 --
ReplyDelete"I read a bunch of local bloggers who cover the county I live in, and without exception their content is c-r-a-p. It is poorly written, devoid of context, alarmingly incomplete and rife with their own opinions."
If their content is in fact, crap, then why are you still reading them in the first place? Surely your time is better spent reading something of substance.
Perhaps matters not really as bad as you say? I can't think of a reason to keep reading anything after I've determined it to be crap, no matter how "local" it is, be it a do-it-yourself blogger or a daily newspaper.