Thursday, February 28, 2008

Report: GCI employment fell 7.2% last year

The number of Gannett employees has fallen to 46,100 from 49,675 a year ago, the company disclosed in its just-released 2007 Annual Report to shareholders. Now you know why you're working so much harder. But as near as I can tell, we still don't know how many people work at Corporate -- and whether that figure fell last year at the same rate as overall employment. The company continues to keep the figure under wraps. How come?


  1. The closest I've been able to get is 600 at Corporate, but that was from a tipster. I haven't seen anything in a document.

  2. Hey Jim, I am not sure I understand where you are going with this point. Is it important?

  3. I'm not sure I understand your question, but I'll take a stab at possible answer(s).

    I'm tracking overall Gannett employment because I think readers want to know such basic information. It's also an important watchdog task: reading and interpreting public documents.

    As to Corporate's employment, I'm interested in whether headcount at McLean is falling at the same rate as across the company. If so, that would tell me that Corporate staff may be taking on more work -- just as Corporate is now expecting from folks in the field. If Corporate's headcount isn't falling, it would be interesting to know that -- and to explore that further. (There might be some very good reasons, although none come to mind right now.)

  4. My guess is core employment is down, maybe a couple handfuls. I know the people I work with, that is, the department I interact with from the hinterland, is down a couple people. Having said that, I also know that with consolodations in the field staff count for corporate is up. Maybe not in the tower, but on the payroll.

    If 20 jobs are cut in the field, say, at one of those centers you've written about, and three are hired, is that good or bad? I guess bad for those who lose jobs, but I am guess good for efficiencies etc.

    Where I am going with this is that there could be way more people at corporate doing the jobs of incredentally more from the field (that presumably aren't doing the work any more because they don't have jobs). Sort of an outsourcing to corporate thing. It doesn't mean corporate is fat and happy.

  5. Those are all very good points. Unfortunately, though, without more information on employment trends at Corporate, there's no way to know whether McLean is being more efficient -- or just piling on additional bodies.


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.