Updated at 1:18 p.m. ET. That's the tally so far as we account for the approximately 100 executives laid off last week in the community newspaper division's 84 dailies.Our total reflects a mere 64 papers. That adds to growing evidence that the actual number of canned managers is higher than what Corporate initially disclosed. For example, we're still missing papers such as The Arizona Republic, which announced unspecified layoffs only yesterday. Is your paper on our list?
Is it just good business manners to communicate these kinds of numbers to shareholders, or is corporate obligated to provide accurate numbers of employees, layoffs, etc to shareholders?
ReplyDeleteThe number is 111. Okay?
ReplyDeleteEnough already. Who cares. Let's get on with business.
Here's who I think should care:
ReplyDeleteEvery single newspaper publisher who ran a story in his/her paper, telling readers 100 people were being let go in this latest reorganization.
Its a dumb discussion. The press said 1000 before and Arizona is just now implementing. So keeping tabs is far from scientific.
ReplyDeleteAgreed---this is far from scientific.
ReplyDeleteDisagreed---this is a dumb discussion.
Corporations have a responsibility to share material changes with shareholders and the government (i.e. Sarbanes Oxley), Gannett even more so.
ReplyDeleteThis really isn’t about Gannett being a bit off in the count. It’s about Gannett having to be pushed into sharing any numbers at all. And, if Gannett cannot be trusted to share news about itself in the communities that it serves (people eventually find out), then why should people consider them a credible source for anything else? And, to me, that’s the larger issue for discussion.
Call me an old-fashioned reporter, 7:59, 8:31 and 8:35. But I was always taught that accuracy counted. Plus, I'm sure those additional 11 -- or whatever the final additional number -- would like to be remembered in some way, no?
ReplyDeleteJim, I'm with you. Accuracy counts. If 7:59 can't handle the fact that people want to know what's going on, well, too bad.
ReplyDelete"Let's get back to business." Typical Corporate dismissive attitude. And then they expect us to accept their platitudes of "We're really gonna miss the folks we're laying off" as some heartfelt comment. Spare us the BS, OK? We're all smarter than that.
If the company would just let everyone know who was let go there would be no need to come to the blog. They are making the blog necessary.
ReplyDeleteA news release writer for a company in the news business ought to know that if the number isn't exactly 100, you don't report 100. Call it "around 100" or "more than 100" and we're not having this discussion.
ReplyDeleteThere's got to be a list somewhere of eliminated positions and the ages of people in the positions, if I'm understanding the Older Worker Protection Act provisions correctly. Seems that list has to be given to those 40 and older at the time of layoff.
ReplyDeleteA friend in a huge corporation (not Gannett) certainly got that list when they eliminated her job.
Doubt her employer did it just as a FYI.
I no longer work for Gannett.
perhaps Gannett's basic lack of understanding demonstrated by releasing the number "100" rather than "around 100" demonstrates in the simplest way why it, as a "newspaper" company, isn't succeeding.
ReplyDelete