The memo doesn't explicitly limit the cuts to editorial. But top editor Ken Paulson and Executive Editor John Hillkirk sent the memo, and it looks like it only went to newsroom staff. In any case, I expect other USA Today departments could follow with announcements of their own fairly soon.Corporate has asked the 84 smaller community newspapers to cut their workforces by 10% by the first week of December. USA Today has at least 1,500 employees, so those 20 jobs would be less than 2% of all. Until yesterday's memo, USAT had been one of two papers that had escaped Corporate's directive. (The other one is the Detroit Free Press; no word yet on any job cuts there.)
USAT's newsroom employs around 450. It's not clear how many employees there will actually be laid off, because some of those 20 positions may be open. Moreover, Paulson is seeking volunteers to quit, which could save yet more jobs.
Volunteers and those laid off involuntarily would get the same benefits offered to other Gannett employees in the current layoff round: one week's pay for every year of service, with a minimum of two weeks and a maximum of 26 weeks.
Paulson's memo came on the eve of today's monthly staff meeting, set for 5 p.m. ET.
Please post your thoughts 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.
[Image: today's front page, Newseum]
Following is the text of Paulson's memo:
ReplyDeleteThe current economic crisis has taken its toll on businesses nationwide, including USA Today. This will mean a cut in our 2009 budget, including the elimination of about 20 positions in early December.
We wish this wasn't necessary, but we're facing unprecedented economic challenges and we have to cut spending.
We'll have our regular monthly staff meeting Monday at 5 p.m. EST and will discuss this development and answer any questions you may have, but here are the basics:
Those whose jobs are eliminated will receive severance consisting of 1 week of pay for each completed year of service, with a minimum of 2 weeks and a maximum of 26 weeks of severance.
If you'd like to volunteer for severance, please notify Lillian Perez in Human Resources by close of business on Dec. 1, using the attached form. Volunteers will receive the same compensation package. Any staff member may volunteer and will be considered for the severance, but there may be some limits based on overall newsroom needs.
The job eliminations -- including those of volunteers -- are expected to take place in early December, although under some circumstances, staff members may stay a few more weeks.
This is a difficult close to what has been an extraordinary year for this newsroom, including outstanding coverage of the presidential race, the Olympics and the stunning decline on Wall Street.
We'll talk about all of this on Monday. In the meantime, please feel free to drop by or send an e-mail with any questions.
How the hell does Craig Moon get away with on laying off just 20 people (or roughly 1% of his staff)?
ReplyDeleteIt seems like he does a better job standing up for his employees then Bob Dickey does.
Don't they all sit in a room together and discuss who is doing what? And if they do, how does Moon get away with just 20 and Dickey has to dump 3,000 of us?
If I don't get fired next week, I am going to see if I can trasnfer to USA Today. The odds that I will keep my job are better over there.
5:43: Because USAT salaries are much higher than Gannett community papers, so it takes less bodies than at a small paper to achieve the same amount of savings.
ReplyDeleteTo put it into perspective, I'm a mid-career USAT reporter and make $65K a year. Some of my colleagues make a hell of a lot more than that. Veteran reporters with 20+ years of experience pull in 100K and up.
But before you get your panties in a twist, remember our cost of living is MUCH higher than those of you in, say, Des Moines or Hattisburg. Your $200,000 house in Clarksville would easily cost $500,000 in Northern Virginia or DC.
5:34 AM: You are a dumbass. Those are NEWSROOM jobs, not TOTAL jobs. D- for reading comprehension.
ReplyDeleteWasn't this predicted? After the election was done and we didn't need 20 reporters chasing after the candidates...(and the Clintons...) I thought we had read months ago that cuts at USAT were only waiting for the election to be finished.
ReplyDeleteQuestions that need to be answered today:
ReplyDelete1. What will be the criteria for deciding which positions are cut? Is there a specific amount of money Moon wants to reach? And if that is the case, would a handful of top-salaried folks volunteering to leave save more jobs? This might be a chance for a few folks to do the honorable thing and go out with their legacy enhanced. This better not turn into a popularity contest or a system that protects newsroom quotas!
2. What specific measures were taken to reduce newsroom expenses before layoffs were mandated? I continue to see a lot of waste and perks. It seems layoffs are becoming contagious and just a bit too easy in this country. There has to be other options, including being smarter about how existing staff is managed. Some people do next to nothing (or just go for the glory assignments a couple times a year...win a Hainer or two) while others bust their butts every single day in the shadows.
3. Are online jobs going to continue to be posted while laid off people are packing up their boxes? If so, that is absolutely tacky and will add to the mistrust and anger of those who are about to lose friends and colleagues. Wait until the bodies cool down. It's not good business to add insult to injury at this point. How is it that the company has money to hire online techies, but no money to keep print staffers that help pay the bills?
4. Do you really expect people to volunteer with absolutely no incentive? What the heck is that all about? I guess the folks who were bought out last year were correct in presuming they would never get a second chance to be booted somewhat fairly.
5. Time for a little truth. What is the forecast for 2009? No more b.s. about being optimistic or not knowing. The economy sucks, and will continue to suck. There are people in suits paid to predict what's in store for USAT in the coming year. Please share that information with us today. And while you're at it, address the timeline leading up to this announcement. A lot of us are feeling mightly used.
Paulson's memo already uses language that dances around the issues or outright distorts the truth. I hope the meeting isn't more of the same. I hope people speak up and challenged authority for a change. We are journalists. That should be part of what we do and what should be expected from the editor.
7:04 - That's what we all just assumed would happen. Leave it to USAT to be predictable.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to volunteer Paulson. His salary could easily pay for those 20 people about to be canned.
ReplyDeleteWho are the executioners? I presume the MEs. But are they going to make the decisions alone or get input from their editors on the frontlines about who will be laid off? It is crucial that wise and informed decisions are made. I've seen MEs make horrible decisions in the past based on mere perceptions rather than realities. That can't happen this time. Too much is on the line.
ReplyDeleteAs an earlier comment said, we better get answers today. This better not be a typical Paulson staff meeting. There should be nothing else talked about except this. And I hope he volunteers info because extracting questions from this newsroom, at a time when everyone is bound to be watching everything they say or do, is not the way to conduct this meeting. He needs to spell it all out, in detail, and even answer some of the questions mentioned here.
I am also bothered that they are going to drag this out for at least two more weeks.
When I look around that lavish USAT/corporate campus, it's hard to believe that the small guy (us) are once again paying the price. Put the "blue ball" on Ebay and save a dozen jobs! These suits, like the GM-private jet gang, just don't get it.
Couldn't you ask him
ReplyDelete1. What will the company look like next year,in three years and in five years, in terms of vision and staffing?
Anyone with a salary of $100k and up should be looked at closely. This is a newspaper. There shouldn't be an army of people in that salary bracket. But long-time problematic staffers also need to be examined, regardless of their pay. The cold reality of it is that this is an opportunity to get rid of some problem children. And regardless of skin tone, ethnicity, sexual orientation or religion, problem people should be shown the door.
ReplyDeleteThe layoffs will hopefully be fair and not just target single white men, who from a legal aspect, are the easiest to throw out on the street. There should be a mix of managers and staff, print AND online (c'mon, just because you work for the web site doesn't mean you're a stellar employee). Both young and old should be represented in the 20 layoffs. And number of prizes someone has won should NOT exempt them from being examined. Prize winners are sometimes some of the lowest producers. We need productive people, not divas.
Unfortunately I have a feeling people outside of the main cliques will be targeted. And if that's the case, God help those left behind. They are actually going to have to work.
I think this is the first time that the newsroom will experience outright, mass layoffs at USA Today. Whomever it is who has to pick the names has a heavy burden to carry. Throwing people out into the cold in this economy can't be easy, even for the most ruthless editors or department heads. On the other hand, that's what they get paid for and I am sure they'll be back to sleeping soundly before the new year. Something about their inner workings that allows these folks to do lots of things a normal human being couldn't do.
ReplyDeleteAll good points on the previous commenters, particularly when it comes to losing the non and barely performers. And that's "diversity issues" aside.
ReplyDeleteThe cuts could have been a lot worse. Not in terms of the impact on the product. But total out the doors. It's inevitable, given 09 prospects.
10:15 AM
ReplyDeleteCare to give us your definition of "long-time problematic staffers?"
Thanks.
I bet they already have the names picked out. So for the next couple of weeks, they need to disguise what they know, smile in the face of those they are getting ready to chop. Pretty disgusting.
ReplyDeleteProblemactic staffers are the ones who simply don't give a damn and show their selfishness and laziness in a variety of ways. Some lack ability, others lack initiative. The worst of the lot lack both. They miss deadlines. They miss work, leave early, come in late. They lie. They con. They survive by kissing ass. They are selfish and two-faced, but often cling to a posse for protection. They are sloppy in their work. In extreme cases, they create legal situations for the paper. They don't produce enough work, take long lunch or dinner breaks and cause others to have to have to pick up the slack they create on a daily basis. Problem people can talk a good game but get nothing done. They milk assignments. They abuse privileges. Their ethics are weak and some could just as well be working in another business. They have no real love of newspapering.
ReplyDeleteShould I go on? While we may differ on who some of these people might be, the most obvious ones should be fairly apparent after a few years of displaying the types of behaviors described above.
I will add that on the other end of the spectrum are the folks who always give an honest day's work, but do so without much fanfare. They are contributors and good people. I hope those people aren't misperceived just because they aren't high-profile type personalities. I hope their jobs are valued, and efforts and intellects are appreciated. We can't afford to lose them. They are the backbone of the newsroom.
OMG! I just got the generic monthly newsroom staff meeting email/notice. They are already downplaying the significance of this meeting by billing it as just the regular monthly meeting. Unbelieveable! OK, y'all, be prepared for 30 minutes of bullsh-t about web site numbers and who got married, and 90 seconds of, "Oh, any questions about those layoffs?"...followed by complete silence and disbelief from a couple hundred people in the audience. Then we will go back to our departments and not hear a word about this from our managing editors.
ReplyDeleteCan't teach old dogs new tricks. They are what they are. Don't expect much from them, and then you won't be that disappointed.
ReplyDeleteUSA Today is the obvious survivor of the Gannett bunch. It will be around for a long time. Times are tough everywhere and the US is feeling the pinch of layoffs in every segment.
ReplyDeleteI wish everyone the best.
I can concur with everything 10:15/10:44 posted. There are people in this newsroom who somehow manage to only have 20 bylines a year yet pull in huge salaries. I know of one employee in particular who works part-time but is paid as a full-time employee. Hand me the reigns; I could easily name 20 dead weight employees who could be canned without any negative impact on the quality or production of the paper.
ReplyDeleteMore layoffs at the livery stables?
ReplyDeleteWhere will I rent a horse if I need one now?
Shocking.
All of us in the trenches know who we could lose without any impact on the product. Heck, some people do little other than watch TV shift after shift! Too bad it's the window-office types who will be making the decisions. And after some of the disasterous decisions they've made just in the last year or so, does anyone trust them to do what is best? Did you see how they handled the buyout losses last year? In essence, they did nothing to compensate for those losses. In some cases, they made things even worse. In other cases they didn't even acknowledge the losses, let alone the impact on us. These are people who stick their heads in the sand, put on happy faces and pretend nothing is wrong in their departments.
ReplyDelete10:44 AM
ReplyDeleteThanks.
How do you do you manage to keep up with lunch schedules, deadlines and assignments while monitoring all the personalities around you? Is policing part of your joh or do you just like doing it?
And, are you are work time while your writing about just how terrible your co-workers are?
Judgment day is coming. USAT can turn a negative into a positive if they make the right moves.
ReplyDeleteA breakdown of where the layoffs will be coming from would be good to know. Is it similar to the buyouts last year, where each newsroom department had a number it needed to reach?
ReplyDeleteWith the risk of sounding insensitive, 20 cuts in newsroom with over 400 people doesn't sound that extreme, so I am wondering what the real motivation is for layoffs. Is this really going to help the budget that much?
ReplyDeleteMy guess is this is step two. The buyouts last year were step one. I believe there is a longterm plan to get staff numbers way down. They just can't do it all at once while the paper is still providing the bulk of the revenue.
These cuts, like the buyouts last year, is a way of opening jobs for the web site. It's clear that top management wants to phase out anyone who works for print. Makes for a wonderful working environment.
On Christmas Day, when we're all working to put out the paper while our online friends are home enjoying time with their families (they don't seem to work holidays or Sundays, or nights for that matter), we'll try to remember those who are no longer employed because of the corporate thirst to go digital, even though the web site couldn't pay to keep the lights on in the Crystal Palace.
Amen, 11:55.
ReplyDelete10:21: I think this is the first time that the newsroom will experience outright, mass layoffs at USA Today.
ReplyDelete20 people out of 450 is a mass layoff??
Are the online people who don't work holidays, nights and weekends supposed to be reporters or posters? What's going to happen when all the real reporters leave and there's no news to post?
ReplyDeleteTwenty is more than two or three, which has occurred in the newsroom in the past if you've been around for more than six months. But thanks for pointing out how minimal 20 jobs is. Hope you're one of the layoffs.
ReplyDeleteTwenty layoffs serves two purposes. Clears up some hiring space for the onliners, as mentioned already, and also is a scare tactic. You can't tell me the empty suits aren't hoping another 20 leave on their own now that the writing on the wall is clear. Companies always want people to leave on their own. Saves them severance, among other things. Watch for a mini exodus in the next year or two. No one is going to wait around and hope for a buyout anymore if they are on the verge of leaving anyway. Those who can afford to go, or are young enough to be retrained or market their skills outside this failing industry, will now be more likely to leave this sinking ship. And just a sidenote or two:
ReplyDelete-- Things aren't that great online either. Don't think some of these 20 and 30somethings aren't watching this fiasco unfold. Doubt they want to be treated this way in another 10 or 20 years. While they are a hot commodity now, they shouldn't think that that couldn't pass as it did for the print people who were on the cutting edge a short time ago. Watch how Gannett treats your elders. It's a good indicator of your futures.
-- Try not to turn on each other. The enemy is management not each other. Always has been, always will be. We only coexist because we provide a service for them and they pay us. We are not friends.
I didn't mean to imply that I don't feel for the 20 being laid off. Its a shame if even one person loses his or her job. I'm just saying... that I don't consider 2% to be a mass layoff. I'm sure you read the news and many industries are chopping a lot more than 2%. Even so, good luck, and I hope you're not one of the layoffs.
ReplyDeleteI see lots of online people around...but just not at night, Sundays or holidays. Yet they are the ones who are suppose to be 24/7 operation? What exactly have we merged? Still got a system of the have and have-nots.
ReplyDeletell:55 and 12:37 I absolutely agree with you that this level of cuts is hardly draconian. We all have our choices on those who could go with judicious layoffs. I believe they took this step to satisfy publishers of the community papers and TV operations, who wanted to see everyone hit this time or there would be huge morale problems.
ReplyDeleteWhat, exactly, do the online people do? Do they cover breaking news or just features----or do they just take what's written and post it on-line?
ReplyDeleteE&P has confirmed the memo but for some reason did not credit Gannett Blog.
ReplyDeleteThe online people just take what others report and write and put it online. That's what is wrong, plain wrong.
ReplyDeletewhy would E&P credit Gannett blog? The memo came from the management to the staff.
ReplyDeleteGeez..hello? Jim had nothing to do with it.
As one of those who took the USAT buyout last year, I can absolutely agree and confirm for 9:26 that I took the plunge because I did not trust that any inevitable future downsizing would be as generous as the December '08 buyout was. This only confirms it ...
ReplyDeleteEven if they hadn't had enough takers for the buyout last year and had to resort to layoffs, the layoff "package" was better than this. With 24 years in Mother Gannett, I got 48 weeks' pay and benefits under the buyout(which are ending this week; believe me, I'm grateful). Had they resorted to layoffs and cut me that way, I'd still have got 40 weeks' pay and benefits back then.
No such luck for relative long-timers now. My heartfelt sympathies. It was VERY stressful deciding on all of this around Thanksgiving and New Year's last year. I can't imagine the pain these 20 -- and the hundreds and hundreds more throughout the rest of Gannett -- will face this "holiday season," because really, they don't have a choice. I was lucky. They aren't.
And the timing really, really stinks.
The online people work bankers' hours, take leisurely lunches, do no reporting work of their own, and are a damned obnoxious group. They don't work weekends, either.
ReplyDeleteWhy would they need journalists to post? Seems like a job for clerks to me.
ReplyDeleteWho posts stuff nights and weekends?
Re: 11:55 and followers-on ...
ReplyDeleteI usually ignore this blog, because I worked with Jim and find his analysis absolutely dead wrong most of the time. I find this whole exercise nothing but a whinefest about the decline of this industry while not even pretending to understand or care about the reasons why. But someone passed along this comment, and I have to comment.
Do you see the people running the site at 2, 3, 4, 5 a.m. after the copy desk has finished playing Sudoku and packed up for the night? No. You're not there.
Do you see the online staffers in the office every Saturday? No. You're not there.
Do you see how much work the online staffers do from home because the work never stops? No. You're not there.
Do you see the database projects, the interactive features and everything else the online staffers do? Apparently not, and you should. Some of them are experiments that will fail. Some of them are terrific.
Do you count the online revenue? Apparently not.
Do you see the bylines from "online" staffers, in many cases more numerous than those of "print" staffers? Apparently not.
Look, I hate to get in a "print vs. online" debate, because I think we should be working together -- and in many cases, we are. We all have talents to share and things we can learn from each other. If you don't want to participate in that, take the danged money and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Quick adds to 6:48:
ReplyDeleteThe copy desks are, by and large, made of skilled, hard-working people, and the comment about their hours was simply about the nature of the jobs -- when the paper is done, they're done, while the online work goes on and on. And USA TODAY's copy desk is one of very few copy desks (WSJ being the only other one I can think of) that doesn't have to work weekends.
So to restate -- that point isn't intended as an insult toward any copy editors. That's just the way the jobs are constructed.
Now the other thing to consider about "online" work -- pre-convergence, the site was profitable in large part because the staffers were getting paid peanuts. Post-convergence, they still are. Regardless of how many ads we're selling, the fresh-faced young online staffer next to you isn't a drain on the budget.
We're all sorry the industry is declining. But there's simply no excuse for taking it out on the "online" staffers. I've heard demeaning comments in staff meetings, and I know it's a cottage industry here. Does anyone really think USA TODAY shouldn't have a Web site?
(Could the site be better? Maybe so. That's something worth asking the higher-ups. Underpaid, overworked online staffers are poor scapegoats.)
To 6:48pm.
ReplyDeleteAmen. Thank you for saying what I was just typing. Anyone who is talking about the online staffers taking bankers hours, long lunches, etc, has clearly never worked a shift at dotcom. And trust me, no one who works at dotcom on the overnights (ALL NIGHT) or weekends, holidays, etc, makes $100K a year. That exists at the papers, although I really doubt very many people actually make that much.
If you haven't worked for USAT or USAT.com, save your stone throwing for what you know. We are journalists, we do the same job you do in a different medium, and we will hurt when we say goodbye to 20 friends. Stop with the venom. It won't help our industry survive.
6:48 pm wrote: "I worked with Jim and find his analysis absolutely dead wrong most of the time." Hmmmm. I wonder who that is?
ReplyDeleteJim, it could be almost anyone. I'm sure you have good intentions, and I know you have a lot of enablers here. But drumming up a bunch of whining about the way these online whippersnappers are ruining everything isn't solving anything. It's not helping the people who are going to stay put, and it's not helping the people who are going to leave -- voluntarily or involuntarily.
ReplyDeleteAmen to those who say we shouldn't be fighting each other. I'm not painting anyone with a broad brush -- among the "print" and "online" staffs, you have a mix of good and bad, talented and untalented, intellectually curious and intellectually dead. It's the people who have no interest in pushing forward using ALL the talents we have who really ought to quit whining about it and go find something else to do.
And for heaven's sakes, those people should quit posting over here and giving everyone the impression that Gannettoids are a bunch of Luddites trying to protect relatively cushy jobs (compared to the pay of academia and the workload of law) by throwing a spanner in this whole "Internet" thing.
And finally, a quick thought on the different jobs at USAT:
ReplyDelete- USAT employs photo editors who take staff and wire photos and prepare them for print.
- USAT employs copy editors who edit stories (usually a second or third read after the AEs) and write headlines.
- USAT employs page designers who package all this content on print pages according to the wishes of higher-ups and the design standards of USAT as a whole.
Are any of these three jobs a waste of time? I don't think so.
So why would the job of an online editor, which includes all three of those roles plus a bit of the AE job, be a waste of time?
USAT does indeed need more reporting. The big issue there is technology. It shouldn't take so much work to maintain the Web site. With better efficiency there, you could -- as a staff or as individuals -- spend less time maintaining and more time reporting.
If the buyouts/layoffs force progress on that issue AND help us shed some people who haven't been interested in their jobs for five years, then some good will come of this. My fear is no progress and the loss of talented, dedicated people.
USAT photo editors do much, much more than "take staff and wire photos and prepare them for print"
ReplyDeleteThey play a big role in conceptualizing story ideas on the front end and assigning photos that help tell great stories. I know one photo editor who will go to more than a dozen sources collecting images until he finds just the right one for a particular story.
Yes, photo editors do that. So do online editors, though they don't spend as much time on that because the job isn't as specialized.
ReplyDeleteThe point isn't to denigrate photo editors. It's to stop the denigration of online editors by explaining the multiple facets of the job.
10:17 PM
ReplyDeleteJob isn't as specialized? What could be more specialized than conceptualizing up front so readers have multiple entry points to information?
Gannett's busy web mish-mashes make me think nobody really plans or knows how to engage readers any more. Those websites are a mess.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteGotta ask. You don't have to answer.
Did you get the feeling anyone was setting you up for failure or trying to push you out the door?
8:54 am: Answer: a qualified "no.'' Management was not allowed to lobby those of us who received buyout offers; that is, my boss couldn't try to talk me into staying. Nevertheless, it was clear my boss didn't want me to leave.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, management back in McLean, Va., did not provide any such secret "please stay'' signals. Indeed, I offered to NOT apply for a buyout if management agreed to let me take an UNPAID leave of absence during summer 2008. But I was turned down, so I decided it was time to move on.