Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Tip | Is a mandatory furlough in your future?

I've heard the following tip from just one source, so -- as always -- take this with a grain of salt. With that caution in mind:

A well-connected reader tells me that one-week unpaid furloughs are in the works for at least some Gannett newspapers during the first quarter -- the three months beginning, more or less, on Jan. 1. I do not know whether this mandatory time off is just for some papers in the U.S. community newspaper division -- or all of them. In any case, I hear some members of operating committees -- the group of top managers at many local GCI sites -- were recently told about the plan.

Any widespread mandatory furloughs would be the first since the first quarter of this year. There were two rounds of furloughs in 2009: during the first and second quarters.

18 comments:

  1. If this is true, it indicates that furloughs are becoming part of the budget planning process at this company. That is very sad and unsettling.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't see why corporate doesn't get it over with and slash all the staffs once and for all and forget prolonging the pain with annual furloughs that have become as predictable as the Fourth of July.

    Every year the workers who do the heavy lifting end up getting paid less. Furloughs and higher insurance premiums all add up to more money for corporate.

    Gannett has made it clear that quality is not a concern. The honchos keep chipping away, chipping away and all the while proclaim their interest in serving the community.

    And through it all, the worker bees have to make do with less money and the persistent threat that they and their jobs are expendable at any time,

    Get it over with already!

    ReplyDelete
  3. To use the words of Tolkien:
    "A ragged house long bereft of lordship."

    ReplyDelete
  4. It wouldn't surprise anyone, I'm sure. It's also possible that this may be decided on a paper-by-paper basis. We had furloughs in Tucson this year from May to the end of September, independent of the rest of Gannett.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Interesting ~ Furloughs on top of cutting all those jobs on the local level when they move to the design hubs ~ which I have heard will now involve copy editors, too.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would mcuh rather still be employed and have to take furloughs then be out of work. Maybe some of you that hate it and hate gannett so much should leave so those who want to work can.
    Try finding a job making what your making, bet you have tried and cant.
    Stop bitching, you have a job.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yeah! an extra week of vacation!!! Five less days I have to spend pretending I care.

    ReplyDelete
  8. At least on furlough week, I'm not going to be expected to work anyway....like my normal "vacations" and "weekends"

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's a matter of a company taking advantage of its employees again and again and again.

    There's nothing the company likes better than employees who work harder for less. It simply reinforces the value of cutting and furloughing.

    And yet, the people cutting and furloughing their staffs are doing just fine, thank you. They're getting bonuses, and pleasantly finding themselves getting paid more for having less to do.

    Yep, if you have a job with Gannett you should keep it. The economy isn't exactly great. But get those resumes out; start going to night school for retraining. DON'T JUST SIT THERE AND WAIT FOR YOUR TURN AT THE GUILLOTINE. PLAN YOUR ESCAPE.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Some day, dear board of directors, you will reap what you have sown... But for now, hell, live it up! Hand out unconscionable bonuses! Eat, drink, be merry! Cut, furlough, restructure. Push, prod, and pummel! What have you got to lose? What have you got to ... What have you got ... what have you ... what have ... what ...

    ReplyDelete
  11. I am so glad I am out of Gannett and don't have to worry about the constant threats of layoffs and furloughs all the while having increased pressures and demands. Please sir, may I have another?

    ReplyDelete
  12. it always cracks me up when there's a board meeting at the CP. 1 limo for each board director.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 1 furlough equals about $35 to $40 million in costs. Of course, that could be a lot lower as the company shrinks. Maybe execs could do without annual bonuses for a change.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Am on OC at my property. Nothing mentioned.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Furloughs will be targeted for those struggling to meet revenue expectations, and everyone's right about furloughs becoming a mainstay. Its like crack cocaine. Bean counters become addicted to this solution because once done, they're faced with cycling comparable earnings quarters and then what? I expect widespread first quarter 2011 furloughs because of first quarter 2010 furloughs. Furloughs for the rest of 2011 depend on business conditions with no help from elections or Olympics to boost ad revenues in broadcast or print. Digital to the rescue, right. Add to all this a newsprint budget price that is stratospheric and will force cuts in print product and people. Does anyone on this blog know what GCI really pays for its newsprint? How much insurance does Martore need before she'll back this thing down and give the papers a fighting chance at survival? Riddle me that Batman.

    ReplyDelete
  16. From what I'm now hearing, it sounds more and more that any furloughs will be decided site-by-site. That said, it appears some sites are seriously considering another round.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I love my fer-cations, my furloughs. They are wonderful. Seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  18. So you love getting your pay cut year after year. You love falling behind financially even at a time of near zero inflation. Beautiful!

    For those looking at retirement within the next few years, the view may not be as wonderful. Your Social Security payment is based on an average of your last 10 years pay. When your pay stagnates, your retirement income stagnates as well.

    And let's not forget the money corporate saves in its 401k match. If you get a raise, Gannett has to pay more into your account. If your pay is cut by furloughs, it pays less. Likewise it also pays less into Social Security.

    Furloughs are a win-win for Gannett and a lose-lose for its rank and filers who don't benefit from management's bonuses that compensate for their supposed "loss by furlough."

    ReplyDelete

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.