The board: Starting at top row, left to right, with compensation committee members in boldface: Dubow, Elias, Harper, Louis, Magner, McCune, McFarland, Shalala, Shapiro and Williams.To Gannett's outside directors:
I hope you have not yet approved bonuses for Chairman and CEO Craig Dubow and other senior executives for their work last year. When you approved the last round of seven- and six-figure awards, rank and file workers and other small shareholders reacted with dismay.
Now, one year later, tens of thousands of employees are watching your decision via this blog. You do not know these workers well enough. I do. That is why I am growing more concerned about this blog's recently rising temperature -- a rise that I worry reflects emotions across the company's global workforce of more than 40,000.
Your employees are frustrated, scared and increasingly angry -- an anger bordering on uncontrolled rage. No doubt, this is true across the economy, as companies big and small send millions of workers into the street to face the worst labor market in decades.
Only yesterday, the government said employers had slashed another 600,000 jobs, the most since 1974. The jobless rate rose to 7.6%, highest since 1992. Meanwhile, President Barack Obama (inset), elected on a platform of historic change, wants caps on executive pay. His call was aimed specifically at the banking and auto industries seeking taxpayer bailouts. But his message is clear.Extraordinary times, extraordinary sacrifices
One year ago, you gave your colleague Dubow a $1.75 million bonus on top of his $1.2 million in base pay; his total compensation was $7.5 million. (Much of that is in now-worthless stock options.) The company's other most powerful executive, Chief Financial Officer Gracia Martore, got a $600,000 bonus on top of $700,000 in pay. Her total pay: more than $3 million.
At the time, you said Dubow deserved such a payout because you wanted to "recognize" him for "continuing to provide leadership and vision, developing and articulating the strategic direction of the company, and fostering an environment in which the senior management team was able to support and execute the strategy he articulated.''Gannett's stock closed yesterday at $4.91, ranking its performance in the middle of big rivals and the widely watched S&P 500 index, all down double digits from a year ago, Google Finance says:
- Lee: down 98%
- McClatchy: 94%
- Gannett: 87%
- New York Times Co.: 71%
- News Corp.: 62%
- Washington Post Co.: 44%
- S&P: 38%
They do not deserve a dime
Indeed, short of resigning, Dubow's smartest move would be to give up all compensation in sympathy with his wounded workforce.
You and your chairman may opt for more of the same. You may also decide to retain the rich dividend. The choice is yours.
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.
"But his message clearly was meant for all companies."
ReplyDeleteHang on now, I think I can find a bigger brush for you to paint with.
Hmm. That was weird. At one point, this entry was posted five times!
ReplyDeleteYou should e-mail the text of this post to as many board members as possible, with a note that it's on the blog. (That way, they can see it without having to admit they read the blog.)
It's insane that one man can get a $1.75M bonus for "articulating," and the rest of us get squat.
I second that.
ReplyDeleteAs a layoff victim, I can assure these people in the bubble -- at corporate and the directors -- that they can't even begin to imagine what those of us now with plenty of time on our hands have considered doing to make our voices know, really known, if such offensive behavior continues.
I'm a peacenik and threaten no physical harm to anyone, but understand that these execs and this board of directors have put some of the most creative and enterprising people in America in enemy position. The big cheeses better hope we all get appropriate new jobs very soon.
Thanks, Jim. Someone needed to pull this flag up the pole. Fair warning
They have a contractural agreement to pay bonuses. Your proposal would have the board of directors break the legal contracts with these executives.
ReplyDeleteOutstanding, Jim! You have hit the nail on the head as to how everyone is feeling and what their reaction will be if bonuses are granted to this group at the top. Nice job.
ReplyDeleteAw, c'mon. Pay them the bonuses - they deserve them!
ReplyDeleteWho serves on the executive compensation committee? I'm assuming it's met and made a decision about bonuses.
ReplyDeleteA senior staff member at Corporate has privately expressed concern to me about issues related to the physical safety of one executive in particular.
ReplyDeleteThe executives get bonuses for meeting specific goals, such as coming in within budget, or meeting other production requirements set out in advance. If they meet these goals, why are they not entitled to the bonuses they were promised. It is only remuneration for work accomplished.
ReplyDeleteBecause these are extraordinary times. Business as usual is unacceptable. That is over.
ReplyDeleteBreaking a contract, 2/07/2009 11:59 AM?
ReplyDeleteWell, gosh gee! Maybe Barbara Wall could put all those corporate attorneys to work and find a way around it.
The gap between the haves and the have nots in Gannett is so wide, there ain't no getting over or under it to badly paraphrase a song that's running through my mind right now.
The working stiffs of this company have been asked to sacrifice everything from their way of earning a living to their sense of security.
Jim is speaking, in a polite way, expressing the not so PC views of thousands and thousands of people ... more than 4,000 laid of and tens of thousands furloughed.
If and when Gannett grows and prospers again, that's when the top layer of executives should be granted bonuses ... and not before.
Sorry to be cynical, but asking the board of directors to hold the top executives accountable is naive. They're all in it together.
ReplyDeleteNo white knights are coming to the rescue. Although Jim Quixote Hopkins is trying his best. Thank you for that. It is much appreciated.
Don't go silently. Protest loudly, but peacefully. Tell them you are mad as hell, and you won't take it anymore.
ReplyDeleteThe sex sells has been in use at Gannett for quite a while now. It is positively disgusting. At our site they hire ad reps not for their job qualifications, but for how they look. It didn't matter that they couldn't sell an eskimo a heater in the dead of winter, as long as they look sexy. Our ad revenue plummeted long before the economy did because they had stupid young air head women who are only concerned about tanning appointments on company time, shopping, boyfriends, and everything but selling an ad. When you get a salary on top of commission, who cares about selling? As long as you can hang out your assets, the boss doesn't care. The customers were appalled at the sales reps coming into their stores. No professionalism at all. DISGUSTING
ReplyDeleteTHANK YOU JIM FOR EVERYTHING YOU DO AND EVERYTHIING YOU HAVE DONE. YOU ARE AN INSPIRATION TO MANY. GOD BLESS
ReplyDeleteIs it true that every site that has lots its press to centralized hub has also lost ad production to the hub also? Does anyone know if this is true?
ReplyDeleteThis is great writing, Jim. Thank you for it. Even if the ones it is meant for never read it, us underneath thank you for putting our struggle (as well as the rest of the nation's) in such a beautifully written plea.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
BRAVO, Jim!
ReplyDeleteIf Dubow and Martore had any class, they would reject the bonuses.
OK, call me a starry-eyed dreamer.
Wish I could sign my name.
Thanks for posting this Jim. Alas, I'm afraid there's not much we poor employees can do aside from complain.
ReplyDeleteI sure hope nobody would do anything ridiculous like turn to violence. The frustration is understandable, but that wouldn't make anything better for anyone.
As for the contractual obligation to pay bonuses, those contracts should be renegotiated right now. Bonuses were meant to be paid for work well done. Meeting a budget while letting the overall value of the company decline by 90 percent is not work well done.
If the exec. staff won't renegotiate, then they should be cut loose. Yeah. We'd have to pay for the Golden Parachute, but that would be far less money than Dubow and company have lost so far. Then, we could rehire minus the ridiculous bonus and parachute contracts.
Won't happen, but it's a nice idea.
I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANY MORE.
ReplyDeleteNO VIOLENCE. EVER.
Just get rid of those selfish b*st*rds. Pay the money if you must, just get rid of them.
If Obama didn't mean it to apply to all companies, he should have.
if they're contractually obligated to pay bonuses I'd suggest a penny. But even that is .02¢ too much.
ReplyDeleteGreat populist sentiment, Jim, but it plain ain't gonna happen. As much as we pretend this is an organization committed to gathering news and telling truth, it really is a corporation established to make money for those who control it. Those at the top pay pittances to those who do the daily work while they cash in from the profits that roll in. We are not players in this organization, and so we have no say. The bonuses are just part of the payments that come with being an executive for Gannett. If there is a revolt in the ranks over the bonuses as you suggest, then the view from the top will be to go out and hire a new crop to do the daily work. They could care less what you or I think. It is their money, and they believe they are entitled to it for their last breath, as you so amply tell with Neuharth's continuing salary. It is fruitless to fight it. Those who rule make the rules.
ReplyDeleteNoble attempt at a very sensible idea, Jim, but I think you're spitting into the wind. These people think they are immune to the coming depression, and it's quite possible that they are. Once they're done picking over the bones of the organization, there should be enough $$ for some tidy bonuses. Workers? What workers? Let's just outsource everything to India and be done with it. It's gotten to the point that some of the editing in our local paper is so bad, it's embarrassing to read. I don't blame the editors (much) because they're so short-handed. But it does nothing to improve the overall reputation of the papers.
ReplyDeleteI for one, would still like to know how much money Dickey's rounds of golf earned the company. Extraordinary times require extraordinary measures. Playing golf with celebrities in an effort to - ahem - NETWORK shows a "business as usual" attitude. So, did it garner a multi-million dollar advertising deal with a clothing company? Did Tiger Woods offer to step in and save the company with a kazillion dollar donation? Come on Mr. Dickey, if it wasn't just a personal vacation conveniently taken on the heels of giving people in nearby Tucson some devastating news, show us what you earned us! I think we all should hold him to task on this.
ReplyDeleteTo the guy who said bonuses should be given because certain objectives had been reached: I say BS. That's like telling the captain of the Titanic that he gets a bonus because, up until the dreaded moment, he was ahead of schedule. Who cares WHAT objectives were met if the stock is now junk? Doncha think the long-range objective, even if it wasn't stated, is to keep the ship afloat (literally and metaphorically)? JMVHO.
ReplyDeletePointless? Voiceless?
ReplyDeleteThose of us who are from newsrooms are resourceful. For example, from my past reporting, I know Shalala is close to one of my senators. And I have developed a good relationship with that senator's chief of staff over the years.
Guess who got an email referral to Jim's page?
Use your heads to make your voice heard.
If the Obama jobs policy doesn't work far enough, fast enough, America is likely to see a worker's revolution. Sometimes I wonder if this massive layoff in just a few months nationwide wasn't designed by all these multimillion-dollar-income types tied to Wall Street wealth. Is that the "goal" that one of you thinks the directors expected Dubow to reach to make his bonus? Maybe.
There's a finite amount of money in the economy. The Bush/GOP plan was to move as much of it to the wealthiest few and to bait and overextend credit to the low- and middle classes amid a new bankruptcy law that prohibits people from ever writing off debt and total failure, like corporations get to do easily.
This nail in labor's coffin may be by design to smoke out every last bit of cash saved by average people like us. And we'll be relatively quiet and gullible, I think, only as long as our severance and savings hold out. Then, look out.
Just consider history. The patterns never change. The bourgeoisie rarely meet a good end. The directors would be smart to listen to what we're saying.
11:59 AM,
ReplyDeleteContracts can be renegotiated and/or disssolved so long as both parties are acting in good faith.
Oh wait, that concept doesn't appear to be part of corporate thinking.
11:59 AM: Although not in writing, they've surely broken their "good faith contract" with employees and stockholders.
ReplyDeleteOK, so let's say they HAVE to give bonuses because contracts to that effect were signed. What if Dubow et al. put that money right back into the company instead of keeping it for themselves? At the very least, they could use it to pay for their perks instead of letting the company continue to pick up the tab.
Sadly, all those hoping for Gannett board or executives to listen or even care about the voices of "the masses" are naive and in for a sad surprise.
ReplyDeleteThey just do not care. facts matter not. "Fairness" certainly doesn't. We are talking Gannett here. A near criminal company.
Give it up, folks. What is, is.
The only way there could have been real change would be for editors and reporters to simply produce shocking front pages one day that call gannett what they are - ruthless pigs. And then walk out the door...
It would make even more headlines.
Why not folks? You are all getting fired or laid off anyway? Go out with a bang!
Produce a page one throughout Gannett that says, in 300 point type:
"F--- Gannett!"
That MIGHT get their attention. Nothing short of that will, believe me.
3:23 PM, I have hope that the tone Obama is setting will cause corporations in America to stop the misbehavior.
ReplyDeleteWe have the president -- one beloved by the world -- who now is speaking for us. That changes the playing field.
Hey 2:56 PM, put away the Communist Manifesto and come up for air!
ReplyDeleteGreat sentiment Jim - however - in the world of corporate plutocracy, "justice" really means "just us". The directors and the board all take care of each other and don't give two shits about you, me or anyone else visiting your blog.
ReplyDelete2:56 PM, get your head out of KKKarl Rove's lap and read some historical literature, yourself, including the Communist Manifesto. You'd find a lot of truth in it.
ReplyDeleteOops, that last was meant for 3:54 PM.
ReplyDeleteDidn't the SEC a few years ago begin requiring measureable objectives be met to justify corporate bonuses? Where's the oversight on the board's level and the SEC level if that's true?
ReplyDeleteP.S. to the directors: I'm not just an employee. I'm also a shareholder - and I vote.
ReplyDelete11:59am said, "They have a contractural agreement to pay bonuses" to Gannett's executives.
ReplyDeleteFunny, but Gannett wanted my union to break the legal and binding manning clause to satisfy their bull-shit furlough plan.
It all goes one way with Gannett.
11:59....CONTRACTUAL BONUSES !!!
ReplyDeleteDEFINITION ----- BOUNUS
1. something given or paid over and above what is due.
2. a sum of money granted or given to an employee, a returned soldier, etc., in addition to regular pay, usually in appreciation for work done, length of service, accumulated favors, etc.
What the F*ck have they done to deserve even their base pay.
My Aunt & Cousins run a small chain of jewelry stores in New Jersey. If I did to their company what these c*cksuckers have done to this company ($71.40 Per Share July-2005 TO $4.91 Per Share February-2009 LOSS OF 93% in Value), My Aunt would give me the "BONUS" of being face down in the mud underneath the New Jersey Turnpike (a la the Sopranos).
What do they have ONE WAY CONTRACTS.
Correct me if I'm wrong... Weren't laws changed some years ago to allow ownership of two (or more) media outlets in one market by one corporation? And wasn't this to "save" media outlets from going under? So, why shouldn't Congress step in before media giants like Gannett put the whole industry in the crapper?
ReplyDeleteThis blog is quickly losing credibility. All its done the last few weeks is just write posts to incite emotion to keep the comments going. Remember when Jim used to say that all the content was supposed to be created by the users? What user asked about bonuses? Who asked Jim to write a letter to the board about bonuses? Don't speak for me and say that I'm frustrated and scared. You don't know me.
ReplyDeleteDubow assured the board they'd see progress in 2008. That's how he concluded his annual message.
ReplyDeleteI guess it's now up to the board to define "progress."
I say enough of the excuses about economic conditions. He needs to be nimble---ha.
Looking at the economic turmoil induced protests springing up like weeds all over the world (U.K., France, China, Japan, Greece, etc) and the dramatic increases in econoic-stress related violence (suicides, murders, assaults, bank robberies), my fear is that is it a statistically certainty that and "excessively" paid or super-wealthy person(s) will be a reactive targets to people on the absolute edge psychologically & emotionally.
ReplyDeletePeople are having a hard time adapting to the quickly collapsing global economy.
Some of you Journism Types should read the recent article by Nick Turse entitled "DESPERATE TIMES & DESPERATE MEASURES." It shows acts of economic induced violence & crime all over America over the last year. It scares me. http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175027
6:04 There were questions about bonuses a couple of days ago in a post about the board of directors meeting. The ground rules of this blog seems to be that Jim rules this blog, so we are partly being entertained here. He can do whatever he wants, as far as I am concerned, and he really doesn't have to share his actions with the rest of us if he doesn't want to. If that bothers you, then don't read this blog.
ReplyDelete5:50 OK, I'll correct you. There is a proposal being considered by the Federal Communications Commission that would permit cross-ownership of TV licenses and newspapers in the same market, but it has not yet been adopted. Given there was a congressional outroar when the FCC made a move towards adopting the new rules, I can't see a time when it will become law. There are cities where there is cross-ownership, but that arrangement was made before the FCC established its rules, and the arrangement existing prior to that were grandfathered in.
ReplyDelete6:04 pm wrote: "Remember when Jim used to say that all the content was supposed to be created by the users?"
ReplyDeleteI do not recall making that statement. Please show me the post, comment or other venue where I said that.
What kind of sandwich was congress saying we should eat? A crap sandwich. Way to go Jim. I now do three jobs, working extensive hours, and now you don't want me to get a bonus. A stinkin $7,000-10,000 Bonus. I really appreciate your support. You know, I hope they give bonuses instead of following your rediculous blabbering.
ReplyDeleteLaying off people has absolutely nothing to do with bonuses.
Why don't we have all the big wigs pile their fat asses into the corporate jet and fly them into Palm Springs so they can golf and pick up their bonuses. Put them up at the Riviera and give all of them 24-hour limos.
ReplyDeleteThis blog is quickly losing credibility. All its done the last few weeks is just write posts to incite emotion to keep the comments going. Remember when Jim used to say that all the content was supposed to be created by the users? What user asked about bonuses? Who asked Jim to write a letter to the board about bonuses? Don't speak for me and say that I'm frustrated and scared. You don't know me.
ReplyDelete2/07/2009 6:04 PM
I can't agree more. This thing has gotten sillier and sillier. I used to stop in daily. Things got silly and I began stopping by ince a week.
I haven't been here in nearly two weeks and I see all I've missed is mostly a bunch of people with their heads in the sand and a bunch more that used to work for Gannett but just can't seem to move on.
This blog used to be informative but not it is just the owner's airbag to vent and incite others.
Move on. I know I am.
6:04
ReplyDeleteI'm almost positive that someone asked about bonuses last week. But I also think if someone hadn't, and Jim knew this was the time of year they are awarded, that he should ask himself.
As newspapers do we ask readers to come up what is reported on?
"Move on. I know I am.
ReplyDeleteAnd, yet, you're here. Hmmm.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteHow long until you finally remove the chip on your shoulder? Stop inciting people. You don't speak for anybody but yourself, and we know you have a giant grudge. It's been more than a year since you voluntarily left. Your severance has run out. Get a life.
9:19 pm: Hah!
ReplyDelete9:19 pm: Sorry about that too-quick reply; you deserve a legitimate response.
ReplyDeleteI have always said I will stop blogging when one of at least two things happens:
1. Traffic dips below 500 daily readers. The trend is running in the opposite direction, however; traffic is near record heights, so I guess someone likes what I'm doing.
2. GCI becomes a company so different from what it was in September 2007, when I launched this blog, that it is no longer the Gannett Co. Inc. we know.
9:19 What incitement? Jim is providing a board where Gannett employees and others can share their views on this company. I note that GCI is publicly traded, and so wants to have a public image aside from the newspapers and TVs it runs. Part of having a public image is having it tested for validity. Stockholders unknowledgeable about how GCI works, need to know what is going on in the company as part of their due diligence work to see if it is worthy of their investments. If this is a company as pure as Caesar's wife and nothing rotten that it is trying to cover over, it surely has nothing to worry about with Jim's blog.
ReplyDeleteI wish the board could spend one day with me. I am a Gannett layoff victim. I was laid off in a haphazard manner. I do not believe anything in my performance or pay grade warranted my being thrown out onto the streets in my 50s after years of dedication, working holidays, helping to make those around me better employees, etc. Still, I remained optimistic that I would soon be employed again. Boy, was I wrong! I wish the directors could see what my days are like now, since losing hope. I wish the person who let me go, for purely personal reasons, could see the lives (not just mine) destroyed by the events of December 08. I worked at a profitable paper where executives still got bonuses. There was no real need for these layoffs, particularly the ones that targeted the most talented and loyal employees. But somewhere along the line, someone decided to turn the layoffs into a chance to get rid of some folks who perhaps weren't kissing enough ass. And that to me was a crime. An inhumane act that should never have happened. It's time for the board to take charge and clean up this company. Get rid of petty managers and editors whose egos can't withstand an employee not bowing to them every five minutes. My time is up, I am gone from Gannett, but I sincerely hope what happened to me never happens to anyone else there.
ReplyDeleteMaybe this wasn't the appropriate place to comment on this, but I hope someone on the board gets to read my message. Many of the December layoffs were grossly mishandled and the suffering as a result is very real. I also believe the company lost some of its best people during this time, which really doesn't do anyone any good. Not the victim, not the economy, not the company. Those who made wise and fair decisions in who they cut, well, they we're simply doing what they were told and maybe some of those who lost their jobs weren't the most skilled or intelligent workers. But those managers who cut people for all the wrong reasons should be sought out and fired, not given bonuses. Yes, it will be hard to distinguish which layoffs were fair and just, and which were not, but I believe it's crucial for there to be an investigation into why exactly each and every person was chosen for dismissal. The credibility of the company is on the line. You can't have managers making these kinds of bad choices during these critical times.
I hope the board will do something almost unheard of in Corporate America, and before the company is stripped of anymore talent, look into the December layoffs with a fine toothed comb. You will be astonished to see how many good folks, who could have helped turn things around, were lost while some of the most unproductive and incompetent people remain.
The December layoffs at the Asbury Park Press were curious to me for this reason. Publisher Tom Donovan has occasional "breakfasts with the publisher." I knew, I think, four of the dozen or so who attended the last one, and I'm pretty sure all four I knew were laid off. I wonder how many of the others were.
ReplyDeleteDonovan had his "ask me questions" spiel, but almost no one had questions so much as suggestions -- excellent, innovative ones -- about how this property could increase revenues.
The two HR people, Kathi Abatemarco and Judith Dorsey, feverishly scribbled notes throughout the breakfast. They didn't say why.
I just found that odd that so many devoted employees from various departments who took the opportunity on their own time, for the most part, to meet the publisher and to make suggestions ended up on the street a couple of months later.
I hope Donovan isn't getting a bonus. I don't think he gave any serious thought to any of the new ideas, and what he said seemed more like staying the same old failed course.
Just for clarification, what's the division point between "kissing ass" and "not being a prick"?
ReplyDeleteI'd like to continue my employment, so I don't want to be a prick such that my boss wants to can me. On the other hand, I get from reading here that kissing too much ass is also bad.
Hey, guess what? You learned it in kindergarten. If you eat paste, pee your pants and annoy the teacher, you're not going to get to hold the rabbit. Quiet smart kids who made the teacher look good when the principal visited got the extra graham crackers.
Yes. You were laid off because your boss needed to ditch four bodies, and you were chosen because s/he didn't like you. Maybe you made too much money. Maybe your cologne gave headaches. Maybe s/he's a sexist pig and thought wo/men should be doing your job instead of you.
Yea! for you because you wouldn't play office politics. Yea! for you for not bending over for The Man. Yea! for you refusing to go to his bbq's or her Pampered Chef parties. Good idea to refuse new ideas because your boss is twenty years younger than you. Excellent move to ignore video or online training because you could have one of the kids do that for you.
Life is never fair, and perhaps it is a good thing for most of us that it is not.
3:52 am: But what if I still haven't had my turn holding the rabbit?!
ReplyDeleteJim, I love you and your humor! If I could, I would BUY you that rabbit!
ReplyDelete9:19--
ReplyDeleteIf you look at the number of posts lately, you might notice that at times it reaches into the hundreds. I'd say there is enough interest in this topic that if Jim stopped blogging, others would start. This blog is not based on whether or not Jim has a grudge (which a lot of us do and for good reason.) Jim is not inciting anything. Gannett's poor leadership is inciting a lot, tho.
I can give you a rabbit, Jim. Mine are excellent indoor pets.
ReplyDeleteAs for people getting laid off because they fail to learn new media, that's a myth.
I and many others who were laid off in December were at the forefront of the online paper. I noticed Westchester, Asbury Park and some others laid off many editors with web duties.
Such layoff decisions may be local, from EEs and MEs who just don't understand and won't imagine the future of media. But it's certainly not the other way around as a matter of Gannett practice.
If Craig and the board truly cared about Gannett, they would work for free for a year to make things work. That would send a powerful message to the workers. We would actually look up to them rather than dispising them. I think a person who makes $40,000 a year with a family of three has no sympathy for CEOS and Board Members making insane salaries when the stock is going down the tubes. Get some balls and step up to the plate! I'm sure you would survive for a year, but the rest of your workers won't. So will you take the challenge Craig? If you do, you will be rewarded. And if you don't how about setting up a fund for children of displaced Gannett workers rather than donating your money to your college. How can you be so out of touch with things?
ReplyDeleteBecause these are extraordinary times. Business as usual is unacceptable. That is over.
ReplyDeleteThanks Jim. Why is it no one else seems to understand this. I assume it is because they are so self consumed with their own lives and anyone else's pain does not concern them and may interfear with their golf game.
Things are going to get worse, not just with Gannett — but everywhere. There will be social unrest if these trends continue with corporate america. Mark my words.
Business as usual is a thing of the past.
Yea! for you because you wouldn't play office politics. Yea! for you for not bending over for The Man. Yea! for you refusing to go to his bbq's or her Pampered Chef parties. Good idea to refuse new ideas because your boss is twenty years younger than you. Excellent move to ignore video or online training because you could have one of the kids do that for you.
ReplyDeleteLife is never fair, and perhaps it is a good thing for most of us that it is not.
Why is it that people think that anyone over 25 isn't interested in learning new things. I know as much, if not more about new technology than those younger than myself. That is exactly why Gannett is going down the crapper. They think, for unknown reason, that dedicated, hard working, loyal employees who are not 25, can't do the same work. I feel that if you give all employees the same opportunities to learn, you will see who will excel and who won't. Yes, I agree, they are many who will bitch, complain about anything new that comes along. But it has NOTHING to do with age and I have to say, I am VERY tired of hearing it. It is like saying because I am black, I'm inferior. You wouldn't say that, because you know you'd be in serious trouble. Let me enlighten you — if you continue to discriminate against people because of age, you will be in big trouble. Workers are getting smarter and when you joke around with the youngsters and age is mentioned, believe me, it is being documented.
The funny thing to me, is that one day you will be considered “old” too. What goes around, comes around. Your time will come. It's called Karma.
All managers had to watch an hour long sexual discrimination video required by corporate.
ReplyDeleteThey may want to consider making a video on age discrimination.
If we are gay or women, we will file sexual discrimination along with age discrimination just to piss you off!
Jim, how your just getting silly. But you are pretty entertaining.
ReplyDeleteI agree about the age discrimination video. Age discrimination is real, or at least it was in my work place. We need to educate the next generation of leaders on this just the way we slowly chipped away at other civil rights issues. Gannett simply must stop preaching workplace diversity if the company does not apply it to all of the classes protected by law, and provide education about what's allowable and what's not at work.
ReplyDeleteListen up you members of the Gannett leadership and diversity committee. Are you contributing to a diverse workforce or are you promoting age discrimination? Look at your videos and statements and judge for yourself.
I'm impressed by mix of reasoned arguements and just plain anger here.
ReplyDeleteRemember that Gannett top management works for themselves, to maximize their pay. Loyalty to you, the communitiies you serve, or just about anything else is a nice-to-have, not a necessity to them. They get paid with bonuses for hitting financial targets, and they benefit from the share price through stock options. The directors set it up that way to help the shareholders get rich.
While the share price is nowhere, but the more people they layoff, the greater the operating income this year, and thus the greater their bonus. They believe higher earnings will eventually help the stock price, so they cut costs, like you. The more they cut, the more they make.
It's the same short-term compensation system that killed Wall Street. It's there throughout corporate America - make lots of money quick, and then go hide at a resort on a beach where they won't be seeing any of you again. Unless Bernie Madoff gets hold of their money....