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.
[Photo: legendary gossip columnist Hedda Hopper. Blind item?]
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Blind Item | Gambling on a spouse's promotion
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.
[Photo: legendary gossip columnist Hedda Hopper. Blind item?]
29 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)
What are the ethical and management challenges in a promotion like this?
ReplyDeleteThere are spouses all over the company. For decades. Why don't you start a daily feature, so you can shit on each of them?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately and sadly throughout GCI, there have been a number of very questionable "family" hirings, which I'd rather not detail because these people have been given very special treatment (ah hem, $$$$ and perks, for example). They are very pampered and have risen the ranks because of the "connections" that got them into the "family." There should be a policy whereby NO family members be hired to work within the same department, division, unit, etc. of GCI. That won't ever happen here.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteProbably no greater than having a foundation scholarship given to a college in your name, in violation of the foundation's charitable giving rules. But, hey, this is Gannett. What's a little irregular activity between disgustingly overcompensated corporate officers?
ReplyDeleteWhy doesn't this blog actually report anything? Why does Jim keep asking leading questions and never get any responses?
ReplyDeleteCompared to what, Jim? Executives having the company foundation make matching contributions to needy charities such as private schools and alma maters? promoting managers to high corporate positions who are completely out of their league?
ReplyDeletewhat site was it?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIn any normal publicly traded company this would be against policy. Obviously. It's just wrong. But here at Gannett. Well we all know Gannett. Worst run company EVER!
ReplyDelete@ 9:55 PM
ReplyDeleteIf there's a lack of response, it's because people hold no hope for improvement at Gannett and so do not feel that commenting is worth their effort. Advocating good management practices in McLean is like pissing into the wind.
There's a lot of what 5:44 described - who are non-spouses/partners planted eternally in Crystal Palace. These royal treatment characters are immune from layoffs and low raises, are sucked up to, etc., as they do as they please and get away with everything.
ReplyDeleteFollowing is an edited version of a comment posted by Anonymous@4:58 a.m.:
ReplyDeleteIn answer to your question: The ethical and management challenges would be so great having one spouse directly report to another spouse that it shouldn't be allowed in a publicly traded company. But Gannett isn't about fostering an equitable workplace. It's about stroking key executives while making things harder and harder on the general workforce.
ooooh Jimmy you wouldn't post my question about you having a job an donly updating the blog on your lunch hour. What are you hiding? And please don't say Sparky has a different work schedule. What has that got to do with the tea in China?
ReplyDeleteNot unusual at all. For our site, the advertising department is run by a husband/wife team; they strategize with each other and answer only to each other. The news department is also run by a husband/wife team. The wife is supposed to be running a different segment but she answers to her husband. These couples make it impossible to question anything about operations because, hey, who is going to allow a measly worker to question your well-paid spouse? Nobody feels like offering any inovative ideas because of the logjam at the top. This is one reason why the site is not making the progress it should. There is another side here; the couple in advertising have worked for the company for years and maybe they earned their positions. If people are qualified, marital status really wouldn't be a concern except for conflicts in directly reporting to each other. But the wife/supervisor in the news department got a job when her husband came and is unqualified for her job to the point of incompetence. It is really uncomfortable when they fight with each other in meetings. Everybody else knows this is wrong, but it doesn't really matter anymore.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteFollowing is an edited version of a comment posted by Anonymous@6:31 a.m.:
ReplyDeleteThere is a corporate husband and wife team [XXXXX] in the broadcast department. In fact, [XXXXX] also manages her husband (who seems to get special treatment) and it bothers everyone in then division.
There's not even a policy against a married manager having an affair with a married subordinate. Everyone knew and nothing done except a change of reporting for the subordinate. Both now divorced and both still employed.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteFollowing is an edited version of a comment posted by Anonymous@12:03 a.m.:
ReplyDeleteyou mean the one in [XXXXX] where the pub's wife took the buy-out then waited the required non-gannett time then went back to work in the ad department?
Jim, when it's the truth...why do you have to post edited versions of comments? There is and was nothing anyone can argue with or dispute in 12:03 a.m.'s post?
ReplyDeleteon the other hand, I guess re-hiring the wifey there is better than if he shot a man just to watch him die...as some before him may have done...allegedly.
ReplyDeletenot sure my post when through...just in case...
ReplyDeleteI suppose re-hiring the wifey in this town goes over better than having shot a man just to watch him die, as others may have done in this town before, allegedly...
Jim. Are you going to tell us who this is? Doesn't seem like a personal attack if you are reporting facts relevant to the company's operation.
ReplyDeleteI'm interested in answers to the question I posed at the top of this comment thread. I've concluded that identifying the spouse in this case would potentially humiliate him/her.
ReplyDeleteI'm not for humiliating anyone, but when you are talking about a senior manager hiring his/her spouse for another senior position while many lower-level employees throughout the company are getting laid off, isn't that news?
ReplyDeleteI'm a big fan, Jim, but why would they be humiliated? Because they are involved in a questionable business practice that will make them unpopular with other employees? Doesn't that humiliation come with the paycheck in a situation like this. If he or she is humiliated by the fact that he or she is drawing a huge paycheck thanks to a spouse, shouldn't he/she do the right thing and refuse the job?
Also, if one of the above posters is correct and this person also accepted a buyout, this is just shameful. Many employees have been canned after years of service with minimal compensation. If this person essentially got a year off with full pay and was then hired back it should be exposed ... humiliation or no.
High level executives are public figures for the purposes of this blog, no?
Attacks on Craig and Gracia are constantly allowed, even when they are rightfully humiliating.
The spouse in question is not a high-level executive -- although, of course, the publisher is.
ReplyDeleteJim -- That's what I meant. I don't care if you don't publish the spouse's name, but I certainly think it's relevant to post the name of the publisher and the job that he hired his wife for. If Obama started appointing his wife to paying jobs while letting other (possibly more qualified people go) it would be news right? The publisher's spouse could have certainly turned the job down and avoided the humiliation. He or she is taking the money and arguably making it at the expense of people who have been cut (simply because he/she is connected to a Gannett powerbroker. I think posts laying this stuff open are completely fair, as they speak to Gannett culture. Any one who doesn't want to be humiliated by them can change their business practices.
ReplyDeleteThanks again for your hard work, Jim.
I might add that a little humility would be good for the overpaid execs who have been engaging in activities like this.
ReplyDeleteIf they don't face any scrutiny what's to prevent them from doing it?