Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Growing workloads? 'We all need to sacrifice'
From one of the comments on my post about newsroom turmoil at the Courier-Post in Cherry Hill, N.J.: "One of the most interesting things I've personally heard was a comment made by a top editor a few months back concerning the lack of staff, yet continually growing workload. When someone alerted this editor that they had worked damn near 50 hours and was planning to spend some time in the office during the weekend, the editor calmly stated 'we all need to sacrifice.'"
21 comments:
Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I hope that editor is ready to sacrifice his job, and the jobs of many others when the labor board slaps millions of dollars in fines on the Courier-Post. And don't think it won't happen. This blog is all the evidence they need to start an audit. What a moron, no wonder why morale there is so low. People have to work for idiots like that.
ReplyDeletePeople like to complain about this situation, which sounds warranted, but what can the staff in that newsroom do besides writing letters? They need action ... that doesn't involve bathrooms.
ReplyDeletePoopgate: The Trend!
ReplyDeleteIn many Gannett newsrooms over the years, any time a reporter or editor came up with three instances of things happening, it was cause for a "trend story."
Carry on!
This is better than News 2000, All American and Local, Local, Local!
One of the reasons I left Gannett was because upper management was vague (intentionally, I'm sure) on what constituted a "full week" of work. Job descriptions always end with the catch-all phrase " . . . and all other duties as assigned by the manager/director/VP/publisher."
ReplyDeleteNew responsibilities were added frequently without regard to what the workload already was. Delegating work typically wasn't a viable option because downsizing and turnover were never-ending.
I sacrificed plenty in my years. Friendships and relationships were damaged because work was the priority. The pay was good for awhile, but the pain eventually eclipsed it.
It's just flat-out unconscionable for any Gannett manager to give the "suck it up" speech. It may have been appropriate circa 1995, but it's not even plausibly realistic now.
I left Gannett several years ago after a similar comment. Our newspaper had been involved in a major makeover, with mockup after mockup being sent to corporate to be second-guessed and nitpicked to death. Finally it came full-circle, with the latest "critique" from On High suggesting that we do what we'd originally advocated. Too many people had worked too many hours, so I asked Phil Currie if it'd be OK to give everyone a day (a Sunday, as I recall) to catch their breath. He said no, adding: "War is hell." What we were doing wasn't war, nor was it worth the personal sacrifice by good employees. I left the company six months later, and have never regretted it.
ReplyDeleteI left Gannett after putting in more than 60 hours a week. I, too, sacrificed too much of my personal life. The meager pay and lack of any recognition for sacrifices made were just not worth it. These working conditions are something you'd read in a Dickens novel. Today's Gannett workplace is a throwback to centuries past.
ReplyDeleteCherry Hill is the tip of the iceberg, but hopefully the impetus the Labor Department needs to start a full-scale investigation. (I'm not holding my breath.)
ReplyDeleteOther sites face similar conditions and work directives as Gannett continues to try to cut its way to prosperity - which never works (and the sign of a poorly run company).
Gannett is all about the mighty stockholder, but too often forgets much of its workforce own shares of GCI. If it really wants to benefit its investors and its employees, it'll start re-investing in itself by addind staff and providing adequate resources. Customer service, quality and reporting would improve and make each property more attractive to advertisers.
Ever notice how up-and-coming superivsors and managers are required to take Zenger-Miller training (instilling the Basic Principals; No. 1 of which is maintain the employee's self-esteem), yet those same principals are rarely practiced by directors, publishers and senior executives. Kind of hypocritical, don't you think.
I, too, suffered through long hours and poor management practices until the pain wasn't worth the paycheck and left. The result: I've got my family and my life back, and my sanity has been restored.
Good luck to one and all.
Phil Currie is an unsophisticated editor who has amassed way too much power. He has poor personnel judgment, as evidenced by his decision to inflict Mark Silverman on three Gannett newsrooms (Louisville, Detroit and Nashville.) He knows Silverman is a thug. But Currie values that trait because he wanted this thug to impose all the latest Gannett formulas on these papers, particularly Louisville and Detroit. He is directly and indirectly responsible for the depature of hundreds of talented editors and reporters. It's absurd that one man can have so much influence over 100 papers all over the nation. Particularly since that individual did not have a distinguished career as a journalist when he worked at the Rochester paper.
ReplyDeletei seen on the wires that newspapers have to "do more with less" these days.
ReplyDeletePhil Currie symbolizes everything wrong with Gannett. An entirely undistinguished (and I don't count those worthless f---ing president's rings) clock puncher who has collected a Gannett paycheck for, what, three decades now, running an operation renowned for its journalistic inferiority and third-rate leaders. Smart organizations recognize and replace dud managers. Gannett's board needs to assert its independence and do a serious evaluation of its executive help if it wants to govern a viable enterprise attractive to investors.
ReplyDeleteI have three words: "Organize, organize, organize."
ReplyDeleteGannnett has a CEO pulling down $10 million a year or more. He and his associates got fat bonuses last year. What have they done to earn that? Well, they've presided over a 50 percent decline in the company's value in just the last two years, that's what. GCI shares are on the verge of being classified as junk.
ReplyDeleteI'm a Gannett peon in Honolulu. Unlike His Lordship, I've actually accomplished what I'm paid (in peanuts) to accomplish, and a lot more because we've been saddled with a huge load of extra online duties in the last year or two while our staff has been reduced.
For that, Gannett wants me to accept a 1 percent raise (despite a local inflation rate that's been running 5 percent a year and may hit 6 percent this year) next year, after enduring this year with no raise at all. They also want me to pay a lot more for a health plan inferior to the one I have now. They also have announced their intention to cease conributions to my pension.
Unlike most Gannett peons, out here, we have unions, and we can fight back. Strike planning has begun. You say that's irrelevant to you because there's no union in your shop? All it takes is a majority of you signing cards. What are you waiting for?
Is there or was there ever a move to get a union in Cherry Hill?
ReplyDeleteBrevard peon here... how exactly do you start a union?
ReplyDeleteI think Cherry Hill is a union waiting to happen, especially as most of the plant already is organized -- which resulted in the Courier-Post having better benefits than other Gannett papers for many years.
ReplyDeleteI also don't think the folks in the newsroom can rely on Gannett to respond to their concerns. The company doesn't give a rat's ass about the newsroom.
Let's not everyone think that this problem is unique to the editorial departments across Gannett.
ReplyDeleteI work for the advertising departement of 2 GCI papers. What a hell. Sure revenue is down especially in real estate and recruitment. These same trends are evident across the country. Instead we are meant to feel it's our lack of trying. From the bogus and bullshit "sales force restructure" project to selling readers instead of products, our company has no vision for what it's like in the real world. It's a total joke. And my VP of advertising is always being recognized for his great efforts. HE SUCKS! No one wants to follow him. He has no people skills. He has no original thoughts in his bald head. He is not very smart.
He, along with many amny others in our company are reasons for the downfall. The stupid are leading the stupid. It's not just in editorial.
If I could get out of this company (and the industry) I would in a flash.
Gannett was the original inspiration for the Peter Principle.
ReplyDeleteFeel free to start a union at your paper. Then just watch Gannett leave all nonexempt positions unfilled and turn the ones they do have into exempt positions - at least, as many as they can.
ReplyDeleteUnion paper I worked at had an editor in the newsroom listed as exempt - and therefore management - who had not one person "beneath" him on the flow chart. He set no schedules, conducted no reviews and made no unilateral rules or policy. He managed nothing, yet was classified as a manager. Why? So he could work 50-60 hours a week with no repercussions.
Nearly half that newsroom was classified as management. Seriously, almost a 1:1 ratio. Point is to have so few people eligible for the union that it folds. Company's a notorious union-breaker.
What has happened at Cherry Hill is appalling, and I hope they organize. Some of the tales remind me of a boss I had (yes, had, because I no longer work for Gannett) at The Arizona Republic. She casually would say, on a regular basis, that "managers are expected to work 55 hours a week" (for 40 hours' pay), and then she and her cohort deputy AME would leave the office at 3 p.m. while the rest of us were there til 7 p.m. or later. My question always was, "Where is it written that we are supposed to work 55 hours?" I asked the useless HR suckup and even he said the deputy's comments were unjust. These are the type of talentless hypocrites that Gannett has in positions of power at all of its newspapers. It never will change, it is too ingrained and the corporate mucks don't want the boat rocked. For anyone who has the opportunity, get out while you can. It simply is not worth it. I have not regretted quitting for one second. To those who must stay because they need the paycheck, my thoughts are with you.
ReplyDeleteWhen I finally came unglued over the 55-65 hour weeks I had worked for nearly a year and confronted the ME. The reply was:"It's your own time management issue."
ReplyDeleteI was a senior reporter - the only salaried reporter - and was required to write almost any story that no one else had time to write. It was simply not possible to type that fast, let alone actually "report."
After the "time management" comment (more than once), the ME said to me, "That's the thing with you. It's always about you not wanting to work enough to get the job done. That's all I ever hear from you."
Never mind the five stories I had turned out that 12-hour day.
To those wanting to organize: http://www.newsguild.org/org/index.php?ID=905
ReplyDeleteGood luck. It's a long, tough row to hoe. But it's worth it in the end.