"She left voluntarily because of the stress and frustration of waiting for the axe."
-- A Gannett Blog reader, explaining in an e-mail why a 27-year company veteran agreed to quit today: "She will be greatly missed.'' (Paper-by-paper layoff list.)
Monday, August 18, 2008
Goodbye!
-- A Gannett Blog reader, explaining in an e-mail why a 27-year company veteran agreed to quit today: "She will be greatly missed.'' (Paper-by-paper layoff list.)
46 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)
That's sad ... but I've heard similar murmurs among our more experienced colleagues, too.
ReplyDeleteIt's not the biz they once loved.
There should be a great deal of stress in this situation but don't you think this blog is contributing more stress and having people over thinking? 3% will be going but 97% will be staying so the odds are pretty good that you will keep your job. Having someone quit because they are afaid of the axe is not a rational responce given the odds.
ReplyDeleteI know the feeling don't want to go to the office today its just to depressing there.
ReplyDeleteYes, Anon 1:10, it's all this blog's fault. Oil prices, the weak dollar, stress in Gannett Local Information Centers. Fear-mongering Jim Hopkins. The rascal.
ReplyDeleteCan you, Anon 1:10, get a clue? And learn how to spell "response?" What are you, a Gannett exec?
1:10, since when does 50 out of 700 amount to 3%? It sure isn't 3% for the APP folks. And 35 out of a smaller staff at Cherry Hill isn't 3% either.
ReplyDeleteJust another example of Gannett's lovely math.
1:28. Attack the person and not the idea. That does not make your argument stronger but shows that you don't have a lot behind your views. At least 1:10 provided some logic to back up their case and did not attack anyone.
ReplyDelete1:28 pm Read the memo. It's 3 percent for 84 community newspapers. Payroll cuts are being made on the basis of revenue declines at individual properties. We have no way of knowing what these figures are, but I would guess that some newspapers that saw a significant reduction in revenues are now seeing a significant reduction in their payrolls.
ReplyDeleteif this was the FIRST round of layoffs as opposed to the third, fourth or fifth in some cases, you may have a point. but with these little staff reductions/consolidations/etc rearing their ugly head every couple of months, yes, it is very stressful.
ReplyDeleteThe anger and hostility as employees wait for the final word overrides many of the conversations. I’d say most sites have the same idea: Let’s just get this over with.
ReplyDeleteIn Appleton, the union steward is actually telling people who should stay and who should go. He told one employee to her face that she should be the first to go, because she was most recently hired, and that he would throw a huge fight if she is not named in the layoffs.
1:47, if last-hired/first-fired is in the contract, don't blame the union more than the company, since both signed it. and union officers who don't seek to enforce a contract are at risk of legal action -- they even have to fight for freeloaders who've never paid a penny in dues!
ReplyDeletesuch clauses are intended to protect people who have devoted years -- often decades -- to their jobs so they aren't dumped when they start getting gray hairs.
if it weren't for such clauses, older, better-paid people in "at-will" states would get the boot and younger, more easily intimidated people would be working 60 hours a week for half of what the experienced people were getting.
and before you knock unions, think about the fact that the 40-hour workweek, overtime pay and vacations all were negotiated by unions, along with health insurance and the other benefits you're used to. they were not friendly gifts from generous managements.
I think 1:10 is missing two major points in his theory of not worrying. First, the people left behind are stressed in part because they know with each job lost it means more work for an already stretched staff.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, the 97 percent who survive the cuts see a disturbing trend that might one day nab them, too. Does anyone really want to work quarter to quarter thinking about layoffs in an already stressed biz. Does anyone think they can reach retirement age doing what they're doing, working where they are working?
1:10, it's not a simple game of odds that's causing the stress.
1:47 While I respect your union steward's commitment to fairness, telling her he'd fight to get her on the layoff list if she survives is tactless. lol
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm not sure it's irrational to worry you'll lose your job. Each paper is different. Folk on the inside would be able to gauge their vulnerability at the local level, not just by percentages.
2:22 p.m.: No, it's not in the contract.
ReplyDeleteAs for praising unions, I'll do that any day -- but not that one. The union steward said the only reason there the union exists is try to protect seniority. No other reason. Period.
The union won't even let employees take the company match on the 401 K.
1:32, I did not attack the person.
ReplyDeleteThere have been too many platitudes of "don't worry, really," when folks have serious concerns here. As 2:25 and 2:33 pointed out, this isn't a one-time thing. Even the memo says there may be further cuts. If you're in a non-union shop, there are no guarantees for anyone. There have been buyouts galore and, as has been pointed out, a ton of less visible staff reductions in the form of unfilled positions.
The uncertainty of what tomorrow (or Wednesday) will bring is brutal, and even for the "97%" who survive, it may just be a temporary reprieve. Telling people not to worry, "it might not be you" is about as comforting as being told "yeah, it's cancer, but we got it early." It's still a threat, until you know the outcome.
If you don't like hearing about the anger, don't read the comments.
Seriously, anyone who could dare utter the rationale of, "This isn't so bad, it's being exacerbated by a blog, and many more have their jobs than are losing them," is a complete fool.
ReplyDeleteThis is all so Mickey Mouse. They announce it Friday, so that makes the weekend miserable. Then the cuts aren't coming until Wednesday, so Mondays and Tuesdays are further misery. I can't blame anyone saying they can't stand the stress. You really have to ask yourself if you need to be treated this way by a company you have only shown loyalty towards.
ReplyDeleteThis blog isn't wiping out a single job -- that's Gannett! Don't shoot the messenger. All this blog does is ease transparency. Thank God for that.
ReplyDelete2:58, as for loyalty, I've learned you have to view the company as it views you -- it's strictly business. It best protects you emotionally and professionally.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis blog is not creating stress. Gannett’s impending lay offs and management practices are causing all the stress. This blog is a cathartic outlet. I dare even say this blog could be a tool to heal the company should management listen to what’s being said and make constructive steps to improve going forward.
ReplyDelete3:30, I don't think it's appropriate to label Jim's very accurate reporting and blogging about Gannett as political action on behalf of a party. Jim's "good fight" doesn't align with any political view, and I have never seen him state a political view here. The only "good fight" Jim is winning is the one that involves providing the truth about Gannett to all truth-seekers.
ReplyDeleteManagement should read every single comment on this blog, I agree. It's a far better tool to fix problems than that polling crap we did for a couple of years. Maybe some comments are not entirely valid or even sane, but management would get a far more accurate picture of what is going on by reading the comments, not just Jim's entries. I actually think there are some brilliant points and solutions in here. But of course management continues to arrogantly think it has all the answers. Frustrates me that they still call meetings like the one next week. What for? They've already made up their minds on what they are going to do. Send us a memo. Don't need the stage production. I don't need to waste my time in the auditorium. And please don't ask for anymore questions or suggestions from us. It's clearly your show. Run it the way you want, but try to be somewhat honest now and then. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteI don't get or support the politics connection comment either. Seems way off base. Most everything else on here, though, resonates with me. Many legit beefs. This should be mandatory reading for new employees. Lots of important history and perspectives you won't get elsewhere.
ReplyDelete2:22: I used to be a member of Appleton's union, but like most of the smart employees here, I stopped paying dues a long time ago. Here are some of the 'benefits' they've negotiated for us: no 401 K match like the rest of Gannett, less days off than workers at papers like Green Bay (personal and holiday), first sick day is unpaid everytime you call in sick, managers can do anything here they can do at any other Gannett paper with no union portection. The union is Gannett's best friend -- they want it here beause they can still do what they want but give us less benefits. The only ones who are in it are the people who dont produce and care only about seniority even if seniority doesnt matter when push comes to shove. Its a joke.
ReplyDeleteWe all agree that the timing (ie announcing cuts last week and actually making them this week) sucks.
ReplyDeleteDo you think the publisher who accidentally "broke" the news in a company memo forced Gannett's hand here? Is that why we have this unacceptable waiting period?
Surely Gannett had a better plan than this.
How are the layoffs being handled at the different sites?
ReplyDeleteGood question, 6:02 - what's the impact so far on the newsrooms?
ReplyDeleteIn Poughkeepsie, we lost the managing editor, an ad services person and a business office person.
ReplyDelete6:30 p.m., can you give us age guesstimates? there may be an illegal pattern of dumping people 40 and older here. we need data from anyone anywhere who can help.
ReplyDeletejim, can you start a separate topic area for this, please?
Isn't the company required to hand out a list of eliminated positions by age? I thought businesses had to give that to anyone 40 and up as part of either the age discrimnation in employment act or older worker protection act.
ReplyDeleteAll: I've created a new discussion area under the link, "What are the ages of your laid-off co-workers? " Or go to new post at http://tinyurl.com/5msxal
ReplyDeleteJim's blog is giving the world a look at the truth that is Gannett. And it's about time the truth came out.
ReplyDeleteLayoffs have been completed at Brevard. Across the board by seniority-job position. No consideration for what the employee's expertise was.
ReplyDeleteAmen on the truth! This blog is a lifesaver for us Gannettoids starved for info that is not tainted with spin and deception. Probably helping some others out too...folks who maybe were considering working here and now are thinking better of it.
ReplyDeleteSo from this date forward it behooves all of you to just consider yourself laid-off. This way you may take a proactive stance and begin to prepare for round 4, round 5, etc. The writing is on the wall and you would be fool to think you will be spared. Save money. Redo your finances. Rewrite your resume and send it out. Get some training. Secure health benefits elsewhere. Do whatever you need to do to adjust and if you still find your job secure 1 year, 2 years, etc. down the line, so be it (I won't say great, that's up to you). Don't play the role of the victim, it's not professional and it's not good for your well-being.
ReplyDeleteI'm curious which site the 27-year veteran whose leaving prompted this post was working at.
ReplyDeleteThis blog should be shown to prospective job candidates at the earliest possible point in the interview process. Hopefully they're smart enough to do some research and find it themselves, but just in case, Gannett veterans out there should figure out a way to give them the hint!
ReplyDeleteHeh. I remember YEARS ago, when I first started in Montgomery, I was back in the photo department as they were giving a tour to a young reporter candidate. Our assistant photo editor at the time looked at her and shouted "DON'T DO IT!!" Boy, was he right!
ReplyDeleteJim
ReplyDeleteAren't most ME's on the corporate payroll? Hearing an ME got laid off changes the expectations a bit. Or maybe not.
How many papers still have an ME position if they an ExecEd too? Anyone know?
ReplyDeleteME's -- at least at papers I know of -- are not corporate employees, but are employees of the newspaper.
ReplyDeleteIn Cherry Hill, we have an AME, ME and EE. (Though it should be noted that the new management came in and basically reduced the AME to head of photo/online/special sections.)
ReplyDeleteIn Cherry Hill, our ME is on the corporate payroll.
ReplyDeleteI am the Appleton union steward mentioned in the earlier posts. I did have a conversation with an employee about seniority and layoffs and I pointed out to her that the union contract dictates that the last hired would be the first to go. In no way did I tell her that she should be the first to go. She is not even at the bottom of the seniority list. The characterization in the post is pure fiction.
ReplyDeleteAnd as to the 401K, we recently negotiated the company match into our contract. It is awaiting ratification from the membership.
The angry posts reflect the anxiety the layoffs have created in the newsroom and it is unfortunate that employees are taking it out on fellow employees.
I am used to slams on the union. Younger employees, for the most part, have little use for a union because they weren't around in the bad old days when reporters had no benefits and had to depend on their spouses for an income and had no job protections whatsoever.
They also feel that making decisions based on seniority is patently unfair. Yes, it is times like these that the contract comes into play. I am sure it is true of a lot of workplaces that the unions will die out as the baby boomers leave the workforce.
Dan Wilson
Chief Steward, The Post-Crescent
Local 4621
Communications Workers of America
So Mr. Wilson,
ReplyDeleteI'm curious why your union isn't doing things to make itself relevant and valuable to the next generation of journalists and workers at your paper who will eventually overtake you?
Seems like a bad plan for the future to me... serve your own interests then cut and run...
Thanks for caring about the profession and the future.
Not all – but some and perhaps many – union employees feel untouchable and protected everyday. They feel they can get away with being less productive because – hell – they've earned it and paid their dues (both literally and figuratively).
You may be entitled to a job but you still have to earn your pay no matter how old or senior you are.
2:20 PM
ReplyDeleteJust curious. Did you go to public schools? If so, were the very people who educated you protected under union contracts? And, do you think you got a good education?
2:35: Why does it matter whether he or she had teachers who might have belonged to a union?
ReplyDeleteThere is a difference between a union that works and one that does not.
Commenters here have said unions protect jobs, wages and a 40-hour work week. Not so in Appleton. Their contract says the management can get rid of any job at any time. It says nothing about promising pay raises. The contract says a 40-hour work week is not, in fact, guaranteed.
The steward, Mr. Wilson, in his post here stresses the contract's one attempt at a protection for some employees. Seniority.
Why doesn't he write about merit or quality of work?
"Productivity," "talent" and "skill" should not be meaningless words, Mr. Wilson.
My conclusion is that the Appleton union members think they're not worth keeping around for their quality of work. If they did, they wouldn't be so concerned about the number of years served. They would be fighting for pay raises, days off and better sick benefits.
Your skills (not your number of years served) should keep you employed.
Would they in your case, Mr. Wilson?