Sunday, October 19, 2008
Sunday | Oct. 19 | Got news, or a question?
Can't find the right spot for your comment? Post it here, in this open forum. Real Time Comments: parked here, 24/7. (Earlier editions.)
15 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've taken a few steps forward in my search for work.
ReplyDeleteAnybody Expecting a Sharp Increase in UNPAID OVERTIME or a "Convenient Martone Reclassification" of your Position from Employee-to-Independent (Slave) Contractor, Call this guy:
ReplyDeleteMARK R. THIERMAN, ESQ
877-99-LABOR
775-284-1500
LaborLawyer@pacbell.net
Court Holds Drivers Were Not Independent Contractors
OAKLAND, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 16, 2006--
After a five-day trial, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Kenneth Mark Burr ordered Consolidated Routing,
also known as CR Courier Services Inc, to pay $3,093,000 plus attorneys fees and costs
to a class of approximately 80 to route courier drivers who were misclassified as independent contractors
by the employers management from 2001 to date to compensate for overtime.
"It's time these people got paid," said Oakland attorney Randall Crane, who tried the case for the drivers with
Arthur Lazear from the Oakland law firm of Hoffman & Lazear.
Crane said he was pleased with the result and would seek to enforce the judgment immediately
against the company and its principal shareholders. The drivers were classified as independent contractors who would pick up and deliver insurance company forms and eyeglasses to and from doctor offices,
often driving 150 miles a day with substantial overtime.
"These were low-paid workers dressed up as so-called independent contractors, who,
when you figure out the costs of doing the job, worked for almost nothing," said Crane. Also appearing in the case
for the employees was Reno attorney Mark R. Thierman and Oakland attorney H. Tim Hoffman.
Thierman and Hoffman are well known in the area of overtime compensation litigation
for their large overtime settlements.
Defendant was represented by Los Angeles attorney David Palace.
The case is reported as Sharon E. Piert v. Consolidated Routing Inc, et al,
Alameda Superior Court case no. C-83-5688.
Thierman Law Firm, A Professional Corporation
Labor & Employment Attorneys
7287 Lakeside Dr.
Reno NV 89511-7652
Phone: (877) 99 LABOR or (775) 284-1500
Admitted in all California and Nevada State Courts, all Federal District Courts located in Nevada and California,
Courts of Appeal for the Ninth and District of Columbia Circuits and the US Supreme Court.
Hey look, Jim. More advertising on your site.... with no benefit to you!
ReplyDeleteRE: Lack of In-House Expertise to ANALYZE PRESS/PRODUCTION EFFIECIENCIES & Analysis of Financial/Legal/Business Model Flaws of GANNETT COMPANY INC.
ReplyDeleteI've read almost all the data, S.E.C. Filings, biographies of principals, monitored & seen actual operational/management flaws & stress points, monitored current & potential industry legal problems (i.e. independent contractor flaw & growing legal challenges (even with NRLB(especially in now cash-starved TAX HUNGRY states like CA-6 papers, Mich-6-papers, Ohio-10 papers, Florida-4 papers NJ-6 papers, NY-5 papers))).
In addition, report will put Gannett in the context of global economic-financial break-down.
I'll put together an honest objective Analysis of GANNETT'S LONG-TERM VIABILITY for a base of $2,500 + $120 Per Hour. Basically the price of a used truck.
I couldn't do much worse.
Interested? e-mail: weiji2008@live.com
Has anybody heard anything about how bad our medical bennefits are going to be?
ReplyDeleteI thought the same thing, 7:29 a.m.!
ReplyDelete11:07 a.m.: I posted on that here, and am still collecting comments; please see: http://tinyurl.com/6362s8
ReplyDelete11:07 a.m.: I posted on that here, and am still collecting comments; please see: http://tinyurl.com/6362s8
ReplyDeleteJim, did you delete a post about the stock price? ("Stock sinking, Dubow said raising specter of layoffs")
ReplyDelete5:54 p.m.: I took that post down for a moment to correct a figure. But it's now back up.
ReplyDeleteGuess Indy didn't find any silo busters last time. That EE-digital and custom content job (remember the one with the ridiculously long description) was posted again today.
ReplyDeleteAre they tripling that Nashville staff? Look at all the job postings.
(Didn't notice any postings for Florida nannies, though! Did anyone find out why Gannett apparently screened applicants for a babysitting job a while back?)
Anonymous at 7:29 PM said...
ReplyDelete"That EE-digital and custom content job (remember the one with the ridiculously long description) was posted again today."
An overdetailed description in a job posting is frequently tailored to a specific candidate management wants to hire. It's an old trick, been around for decades. They can claim to be open employers that way. Keeps HR happy.
"Are they tripling that Nashville staff? Look at all the job postings."
That may be another old bureaucrat trick to minimize layoffs. Instead of laying off actual employees you close job openings.
Keep in mind (reported here, remember) that they are consolidating ad building from other TN sites into Nashville. When you do that not every one will come along for the ride from the other sites and while you'll wind up with less positions overall you still need to hire some new folks in order to make this happen (at entry level wages of course and not the wages they might have been paying some long-time employees or the managers for that matter).
ReplyDelete7:25 PM
ReplyDeleteThe real questions is this: Will the jobs be offered first to the existing employees who just might want them?
Also, was wondering if any of the other states besides Indiana (reported earlier) are considering sweetening "job creation" deals for the company?
I've heard that benefits are changing, but the price is rising minimally 5-7% (depending on what you have). They changed because the insurance will be cheaper through the new vendor. We'll have to wait a see...this is all the info I got.
ReplyDelete