My USA Today buyout: Secrecy, and hurt feelings

I took a buyout from Gannett's flagship newspaper seven months ago today, and although I worked there longer than at any other paper, I've written nothing so far about what it was like editing and reporting for the nation's top-circulation daily. That was something I promised on Jan. 11, when I put my name and photo on Gannett Blog for the first time. "You won't find any dirt here on office politics, personalities or any of the other interesting stuff I've run across since starting at USA Today in 2000,'' I wrote. "You won't find any inside dirt about the paper after today, either. This isn't that kind of blog."

I'm sticking to that pledge now, even as I write about how USAT mishandled much of the buyout process by keeping many details a secret from its readers, from its own employees -- even from the 43 of us who were sent packing.

My emotions were so raw around the time I quit that I decided to wait at least three months before writing about the experience. Yet, even three months turned out to be too little time, which is why I've waited until today. With so many Gannett employees now considering buyouts, I figured I shouldn't avoid the subject any longer. Based on my experience, you may be surprised by what a buyout holds for you.

Quit, or risk being laid off
USA Today Editor Ken Paulson disclosed plans to reduce newsroom employment by nearly 9% during a Nov. 15 staff meeting that followed nearly a week of rumors about job cuts. Paulson sent a memo to staff that day, outlining the buyout terms -- including a warning to those eligible that we could be laid off if an insufficient number of us volunteered. (USAT initially sought 45 volunteers, but settled for 43.)

Indeed, there had been scattered layoffs under less favorable terms in other departments before Paulson's announcement, leading some observers to say the newsroom employees getting buyouts should have been grateful for what we got.

That, of course, is bullshit. First, the buyouts relieved management of the nasty task of forcing dozens of people to leave the company through a conventional layoff. Second, the 43 of us had worked a combined 645 years for Gannett -- in reality, much longer. Paying us a little bit more to get lost was hardly an act of generosity, especially when you consider the value of top management's golden parachutes.

An emotional roller coaster
Much as I hoped to receive a buyout, I was stunned when the offer came through -- and even more surprised at the emotions it stirred up: Joy quickly turned to anger, resentment, sadness, confusion and dismay.

Now, let me say immediately that I never saw myself as one of USAT's top editors and reporters. I did the best I could at a paper that was chronically understaffed long before the newsroom buyouts. Although we nominally competed with The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, USAT had less than half the newsroom staff those two papers employed. (I suspect other USA Today departments were similarly understaffed.)

Still, I was one of a handful of USAT bloggers, and one of a relative few who routinely used computer analysis in my reporting. Turning 51 years old, I was eager to learn video production, if the paper would only provide a camera. I could shoot photos, edit stories, build and analyze databases, create graphics, manage employees, plus write spot news, features and investigative stories.

Yet, even though USA Today said it needed those skills, it was no longer willing to pay the $105,000 a year -- plus annual benefits costing maybe another $50,000 -- that I was earning when USAT offered me a buyout. The decision seemed incredibly short-sighted, but this is the new math of 21st-century journalism.

Keeping buyouts hush-hush
Paulson cited employee privacy in refusing to identify the people who eventually volunteered to quit. Indeed, the 43 of us only learned each others names because I assembled a list on my own through some plain old-fashioned reporting.

I began telling sources on my beat that my last day would be Jan. 10, by adding that information to my e-mail signature. Because many people started asking why I was leaving, I eventually added an auto reply to my e-mail account, saying I was one of 43 employees who received a buyout. A senior editor at USAT's main office ordered me to remove that information, however, saying it was "inappropriate." I protested, but complied -- something I now regret.

We were told that individual departments would hold low-key going away parties for employees leaving; there would be no larger event. (Indeed, my very kind immediate supervisor organized a party for me. I declined the offer because of a family health crisis.)

As best I can recall, my department did not send staff a note, summarizing the career highlights of the four of us leaving the business-news section, a routine custom at many companies. Search USAT's website, and I do not believe you'll find any stories about the paper's unprecedented staff reduction. In short, it felt like top management was embarrassed about what it was doing, and so wanted us to leave as quietly as possible.

A messy business everywhere
In management's defense (yup!): I'm no expert on voluntary layoffs; this was my first and only experience. Indeed, I suspect it's impossible for an employer to avoid at least some hurt feelings. Maybe USAT followed the Human Resources 101 textbook in how it handled the buyouts. For all I know, it did an above-average job.

But seven months later, I remain mystified.

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.

[Images: my original USA Today employee ID badge and press card, made on my first day: May 1, 2000; this morning's front page, Newseum]