Updated at 3:12 p.m. ET, to add the writer's prediction of third-quarter furloughs, to a note they sent me earlier today from somewhere in Gannettland:
Thousands of Gannett employees read this blog. We all know there will be furloughs in Q3. Can you as a rallying point help organize all employees who have to take a week off so that those of us who are salaried and are therefore required to take the week as five consecutive days can take them as individual days? That's the only way to make the inevitable additional furloughs palatable. Just a suggestion. Anonymity, please. Thanks.
Monday, March 23, 2009
30 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 don't think that's possible, due to the structure of how salaried workers get paid. Plus it's easier to get unemployment for one week versus separate days, I believe.
ReplyDeleteverification word: colonnap
That also means throwing any shot at an unemployment check out the window.
ReplyDeleteNo, we DON'T want them as individual days!
ReplyDeleteWhat a terrible idea.
If I have to do this (which I obviously do), I'm going to make the most of it with a full "vacation" and an unemployment check to boot.
Unemployment? Way to drag the whole system down. Suck it up and take your week or two, don't put that burden on everyone else. Unbelievable!
ReplyDelete2:08, you obviously don't know how unemployment works. Typical right-wing reactionary post.
ReplyDeleteIn most states, the employer pays for unemployment to an insurance program. Maybe you should google before you speak from now on.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_pays_for_unemployment_insurance
New Jersey's unemployment insurance fund just ran dry, and will be appealing to Washington for a cash infusion.
ReplyDeleteI didn't apply for unemployment for my week of unpaid leave, preferring to take one for the team because i can afford it. But I don't begrudge anyone their right to unemployment.
We all pay, one way or another. Right or left it doesn't matter. When you rely on unemployment it only deepens the problem. I know I will not enjoy taking my second week of unpaid time off but seeking unemployment is extremely selfish, just like Gannett corporate. You should expand yourself beyond Google and Wiki from time to time and try to really see the big picture. We, not me, me, me.
ReplyDeleteBeing an hourly employee I took the furlough days once every two weeks during in the first quarter. It was crap. I definitely plan on taking one full week this time around.
ReplyDelete2:29, you must be so confused right now. You talk about greater good, but you advocate a position that benefits only the precious few. The greater good is the requirement that gannett pay out through the insurance programs. This keeps people in their homes, from starving and turning off the electricity. Was it really the greater good for dubow and execs to take millions in bonuses? I question your motives.
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind that if you take unemployment during your furlough it will reduce your total unemployment benefit and you will have that much less available to collect when you do get laid off and really need it. I would suggest that if your an hourly employee, to take it a day at a time and spread it over several pay periods.
ReplyDeleteJust something to keep in mind.
That's one hell of a false equivalent comparing dubow's bonus to employees seeking unemployment. Shame.
ReplyDeleteI'll get a check from the state for my second furlough week ... and feel no qualms whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteYou don't like it, tough shit.
If you're not eligible for unemployment for whatever reason, then individual days would be helpful.
ReplyDeleteI personally would like it to be an OPTION, not a requirement.
How the hell can anyone try to make people feel bad about taking unemployment? Seriously. I have a family to feed and a mortgage to pay, and yes, I'm going to do what I need to do to make sure the bills are paid and that we're not standing in line at a food bank in the next year or so.
ReplyDeleteShame on whomever that is telling people not to take unemployment. For a lot of people, these are scary times, and there is a reason why we have a safety net in this country.
Companies like Gannett are claiming furloughs save X dollars. I have yet to see a company announce a furlough and report just how much is will cost them for increased unemployment tax come next fall. Could the increase wipe out most of the furlough gains?
ReplyDeleteIMHO, a good journalist would be checking into this.
3:23
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone is telling people not to apply for unemployment if they need it. I think the point was if you can get by without it, it may be to your benefit later down the road should you be laid off and can't find another job right away that you would still have your full employment benefits available.
Well, count me in with those who think taking unemployment when you're not really unemployed is wrong. With so many people out of work, and more to follow, that pot of money should be there for our colleagues who have, or will have no regular paycheck. Not for those of us who don't have the foresight to build up a savings account for bumps like furloughs. I know I'm going to get skewered for this opinion, but c'mon, 2:51, I hardly think that anyone who works for Gannett is going to starve or get their electricity turned off just because they don't get a week's pay. We knew this was coming; we all need to get prepared, and not rely on unemployment. There are other people who need it, or will be needing it, much worse. Let the skewering begin ...
ReplyDeleteAnybody know the unemployment rules in Virginia?
ReplyDelete"when you're not really unemployed"
ReplyDeleteAnybody on furlough is unemployed for the so-called furlough period.
That's what the law says. That's why people are going to apply for unemployment.
Get used to it.
I didn't take unemployment during my first furlough because I had savings to fall back on and figured I could make it work. I thought it was selfish to take those benefits away from people who really needed it.
ReplyDeleteI need it this time. Gotta' do what you gotta' do.
At our paper, we increased a part-time freelance worker's hours to cover furloughed workers last quarter. Specifically against Corporate's edict. Like throwing our furlough right in our faces. We would have been better off just giving that part-timer our money.
ReplyDeleteJust waiting for it to happen again in 2Q.
5:05, did you lose your benefits? No? Still have paid vacation? Yes? Then you're not really unemployed, are you? Losing a week's pay and being unemployed are completely different. YOU get used to it.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. We paid into unemployment insurance for numerous years. We are entitled to take advantage of it. It is no skin off of anyone's neck. That is why it exists, to aid workers who lose time from work. Research something first.
ReplyDeleteUnemployment? Way to drag the whole system down. Suck it up and take your week or two, don't put that burden on everyone else. Unbelievable!
I'm sure you either have a spouse who can help you pay the bills or you make much more money than myself. I work three jobs and it is still hard to pay my bills. I need that check to pay the bills. I'm happy that you are doing ok, but others aren't.
ReplyDeleteWe all pay, one way or another. Right or left it doesn't matter. When you rely on unemployment it only deepens the problem. I know I will not enjoy taking my second week of unpaid time off but seeking unemployment is extremely selfish, just like Gannett corporate. You should expand yourself beyond Google and Wiki from time to time and try to really see the big picture. We, not me, me, me
In most states, if not all of them, unemployment laws clearly state that people who become unemployed through a furlough or whatever you want to call it, are absolutely unemployed.
ReplyDeleteTypically, states require that the unemployed person be off work for two weeks from their employer before they can collect unemployment. In this case, most employees have already been unemployed for one week because of the previous furlough in the first quarter. Most employees will be eligible to receive unemployment money in the second quarter because a second week off will make you eligible for unemployment.
It's the law. And yes, the law is very clear about this. That's why everyone should be filing for unemployment. Don't listen to the Gannett stooge that is using scare tactics, threats, insults and typical Gannett management b.s.
To all employees.... file with your unemployment office ASAP, and know your unemployment rights.
Jim, is there a way that you can post state-by-state links to local unemployment offices?
9:57 pm: If you -- or someone else -- wants to round up those state-by-state links, I'll consider publishing them. But I've got my hands full already.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe following is a helpful Web site that includes links to each state's unemployment office:
ReplyDeletehttp://employeeissues.com/unemployment_offices.htm
Each state's link provides details on eligibility and enrollment.
Good luck to everyone.
This may help answer a few of the furlough questions, including exempt vs. non-exempt rules:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hrhero.com/topics/furlough.html
As for me, less pay is less pay. And I can't afford to lose anymore, especially to this godforsaken place.
Media News Group in LA found a way to allow their adv sales reps (exempt employees)to furlough days at a time. Did they find a loop hole or did they just break the rules?
ReplyDelete