Regarding my post about non-editorial job cuts at The New York Times beyond the 100 planned for the newsroom, I received the following via a reader:
The current layoffs are a sign of an unhealthy company because they are clearly cutting MUCH deeper than the 100 positions that keep making headlines in the news. News Service's cuts, advertising cuts, biz-side cuts are all going on without being included in the tally. I also understand that Editorial has been ordered to cut 8% just as the newsroom is cutting 8% (which is equal to 100 jobs). So Editorial has to lose 3 jobs and they still don't know who is being affected. I just know that nobody volunteered for the buyout. I think it's just awful.
Please post your replies in the comments section, below. To e-mail confidentially, write jimhopkins[at]gmail[dot-com]; see Tipsters Anonymous Policy in the green rail, upper right.
Monday, December 14, 2009
3 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)
Which paper is this? What other factors might be behind the business - marketplace, management, product quality, heavy staffing...etc., ? There is a lot more to this than the doom and gloom being potrayed in your post.
ReplyDeleteAnd saying they are signs of an unhealthy company is also distorting. It just might be that whatever company the post references is trying to REMAIN healthy but it feeds the attitude of many on this blog to spin things the other way.
I don't know the answers to the above questions or comments but I do think is irresponsible to not address them.
The paper referenced is The New York Times.
ReplyDeleteSo what about answers to the questions posed by 10:23 am? All you offered was the name of the paper.
ReplyDelete