I remain employed, and I'm not a whiner. I "get it" and have enough skills to (hopefully) remain with the company. But I, along with other people in their 50s, cannot keep from worrying and looking over my shoulder constantly, given the environment management has established. The slackers and dead weight remain, and the old ways continue. Why can't someone look at who is productive and who is useful rather than salaries and age?
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Mail | 'Productivity should rule over wages, age'
Regarding renewed worries about more Gannett layoffs, Anonymous@8:54 a.m. comments:
I remain employed, and I'm not a whiner. I "get it" and have enough skills to (hopefully) remain with the company. But I, along with other people in their 50s, cannot keep from worrying and looking over my shoulder constantly, given the environment management has established. The slackers and dead weight remain, and the old ways continue. Why can't someone look at who is productive and who is useful rather than salaries and age?
I remain employed, and I'm not a whiner. I "get it" and have enough skills to (hopefully) remain with the company. But I, along with other people in their 50s, cannot keep from worrying and looking over my shoulder constantly, given the environment management has established. The slackers and dead weight remain, and the old ways continue. Why can't someone look at who is productive and who is useful rather than salaries and age?
9 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)
You should be worried. Being "skilled" is not insulation. I was skilled; now I'm unemployed. I don't know what the layoff matrix is -- it probably depends on the paper -- but I do know that if you work for Gannett, you are in danger, whiner or not.
ReplyDeleteIt's the same at every newspaper, Gannett or not. Certain dead weight has protection from the people they used to work with. They remain and talented people go. It's not fair, but that's the way it is.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a matter of how productive you are, it's a matter of how much they pay you. That's the only number they care about, and it's why, if you're over 50, you're probably vulnerable. I've seen lots of good and productive people laid off. It's all about the dollars.
ReplyDeleteTalent means nothing at Gannett. It is all about the bottom line. Having worked for Gannett in an advertising department I know. I was releaved off my duties because my team generated revenue and we achieved goal therefore they had to pay me bonus every month. My total pay was near 100K while a manager oppisite of me was making 40 because that group didn't know how to make goal. Who do you think was let go. Me! Now I work taking revenue from the paper, selling another form of advertising. Keep controlling expense Gannett and the revenue will keep falling. They don't know how to grow revenue. It is simple Relationships equal Revenue and Gannett has none.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree 3:16 PM. The management at my newspaper is so screwed up and they ENCOURAGE the dead weight to continue to NOT perform and create a salary system that rewards these people, meanwhile driving out their smarter, more educated talent.
ReplyDeleteThis is why the company will go into the shitter.
Amen. I am convinced I was laid off mainly because of age. I was highly productive, sort of the glue that held things together, and well-versed on everything from editing to technology. But the arrogance and poor judgment of my editors wouldn't allow them to see what others saw -- that I was a very valuable member of the staff. Since my departure, things have not run smoothly in my department, I am told. It is clear that I was let go for all the wrong reasons, including age. Others who are getting up around 50 and who are still there are worrying. Those few who are well over 50 are basket cases, worrying constantly when Gannett is going to make them walk the plank any day. It's a very unhealthy and counter-productive environment. But tales of Gannett being anti-older worker are very true and have existed for many years.
ReplyDeleteWhere there is smoke there is fire. This is a company that does NOT value experience. What they do value are quotas (diversity) and paying people as little as possible. Talent, skill and loyalty mean virtually nothing to this company. They say those things are valued, but their actions say something very different. It's that underlying cancer that impacts the general health of the company.
Until Gannett realizes that you can't create a constant flow of bad karma, or cover up misdeeds with stupid awards and company picnics, the company is going to continue to struggle. Productivity, talent and ethics should be the driving forces of any company. But Gannett has gotten sidetracked with targeting older workers, spinning bad news and rewarding editors who can't manage their own lives let alone a newsroom. This company is in dire need of leadership on every level at every paper. Too many editors are managing by the book or turning this industry into a PR game. These horrible editor and other managers have no natural leadership abilities and have turned their jobs into protecting themselves instead of doing the right thing. Doing the right thing occasionally means going to bat for your employees, especially ones like me who had shown great loyalty and know-how over a long period of time. This is an awful time for anyone over 50 to be out of work. Yet, Gannett disposed of us with such disregard that I can't believe some negative energy isn't going to come back to those who were so thoughtless in their actions.
9:09. I'm sorry you lost your job and hope things work out for you. I could not agree more with your observations.
ReplyDeleteLet's start with the dead weight who spend more time pouring over this blog rather than doing their jobs!
ReplyDeleteI work in production and thought it was just an anomaly at this site that mediocrity was rewarded and showing initiative was punished. Appears otherwise from reading the comments of others. At this site, the lazy & incompetent employees have been spared while the people who cared & knew what they were doing were summarily dismissed. To add insult to injury, the slackers often work better shifts & are better paid. They are also off every weekend & Holiday while the people who actually work are here at 3, 4 and 5 am producing a paper; year after year. The lesson to me is that it pays to be lazy here since being diligent is sooooo unrewarded.
ReplyDelete