"Please explain in simple terms how the decision is the lowest thing you've ever heard,'' wrote Anonymous@10:54 p.m. yesterday. "What exactly do you object to? Remember you were a business reporter. Put it in terms a business reporter would use."
My opinion has never been a dollars-and-cents issue. It's about ethics and grace -- or the lack of them. CEO Craig Dubow and his then-finance chief, Gracia Martore, had only recently disclosed their latest six-figure bonuses when they were planning to shift millions in severance costs onto the backs of already burdened taxpayers -- and away from shareholders. This was in May and June 2009, during the run-up to the big summer layoff.News of their all-cash payouts arrived as GCI's stock was trading around $2.50 a share vs. $72 when Dubow took office. What's more, Gannett teetered on bankruptcy, in no small part because of the $1.8 billion stock buyback Dubow and Martore engineered -- at an average $64 a share.
Now, in July, they were laying off another 1,400 newspaper employees during the worst economy since the Great Depression. This time, however, workers wouldn't even get the skimpy severance given to their nearly 3,000 co-workers laid off in earlier rounds. Notably, Gannett's use of a transitional pay plan wasn't the industry norm, The New York Times said back then: "Several major publishers, including the Tribune Co., the McClatchy Co. and the Times Co., said they have never used one and pay standard severance instead."
For that money-saving decision, it's more than likely Dubow, Martore and other Gannett Management Committee members will get even bigger bonuses when those amounts are disclosed in the 2010 shareholder's proxy statement, probably the middle of next month.
Bottom line: What in the world isn't the lowest of lows about that?
Can you identify a lower low? 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 rail, upper right.
It's the ECONOMY. We had to qualify for unemployment insurance to get what Gannett called transitional pay. It was insulting at best and, clearly, showed true colors. The IRS is conducting audits of companies whose top folks have unreasonable bonuses and salaries, yet the companies cut jobs and reported losses. I have no idea who Gracia is however put her to the test by asking her to cover a fire or breaking new story by deadline tonight and include photos. LOL.
ReplyDeleteI liken Gannett's transitional pay plan to Osama Bin Laden's idea of using commercial jets as bombs: it was brilliant in that he was able to accomplish a lot of death and destruction with very little effort. Of course, 9/11 was much more horrific than what Gannett has done (and continues to do) on a much smaller and less deadly scale. But the outcome in both cases is still sneaky and pure genius
ReplyDeleteRight on, Jim! Thank you clearing this up and even make a knuckle head like this understand.
ReplyDelete5:10am
ReplyDeleteJust a story and videos? What about all the web updates every few minutes, the video----and ofcourse a keen eye on mainstreaming and diversity when it comes to comments and visuals!
I don't think she'd pass the test any better than any other human being who has to do all that day after day.
Gannett continues to sink to new lows and the "serverance "/transitional pay package was the lowest. As Jim so distinctly put it Craig and the gang got thier cash bonuses and then found another "profit" center by dumping part of the outsource costs to each of the states where their employees reside. Not only did the local states help subsidise the costs but the terminated employee had to use up their own umemployment benefits to get the full amount. The incentive to go out and find a job (in this enconomy) was also reduced by the caveat in the agreement where the transitional pay stopped if you found work, even a parttime job was cause to lose the benefit. Way to provide incentive Gannett.
ReplyDeleteI hope that Martore and Dubow enjoy the heat where they go because they have earned it!
This was a particularly low blow, also, because many journalists freelance. When terminated the transitional pay basically caused you to also burn freelance clients ... or to continue to do the freelance work (at a loss) and miss out on the transitional pay.
ReplyDeleteI suppose the lowest of the low would be a layoff with no benefits whatsoever, but this wea really, really close to that. In short, it's not the way legitimate international companies do business.
I'm not a big fan of the TPP, but it appeared better to me than some previous offers. So I took it and opted out of "applying" for my job in Westchester.
ReplyDeleteA previous early retirement offer gave the cash in a lump sum based on years worked. What wasn't disclosed unless you asked was that it was taxed at about 50 percent as a one-time "bonus."
The only plus was you got medical insurance until 65. Of course you still had to pay for the insurance!
I don't see the TPP as unfairly burdening taxpayers because companies pay into unemployment insurance. It is, however, distasteful considering the cash trough that corporate management is feeding from these days.
Bonus? For what? So they can keep the best of the best?
Employers pay into unemployment, but they don't pay it all. This hit taxpayers hard when they could ill afford it.
ReplyDeleteThose paying attention should boycott Gannett papers for this very reason. They do not care about the communities that they're in, and we'd all be better off if they died, making room for newspapers that might give a damn.