We may finally know the number of jobs cut at The Journal News of Westchester, N.Y. In an e-mail yesterday, a reader says staff was told at a meeting that "30 positions held by 23 people were eliminated."
Thirty jobs would be the single-largest number cut in the past week of layoffs across Gannett's U.S. newspapers. No. 2 is now The Clarion-Ledger in Jackson, Miss., which eliminated 15.
The Westchester reader says they don't know the breakdown of cuts by department. The paper's total has been in dispute for several days, as we've waited for more details.
I've added this new information to my running tally of estimated layoffs and pay cuts during the job reduction that began last Wednesday.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
67 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)
Including USAT, that makes 335 laid off this quarter and many papers are still to report. Certainly makes Gracia's claim of minimal severance costs look lame. I know we've beat this to death, but I think we need to keep bringing it up. Perhaps stock analysts read this blog. They probably already know she's manipulative and untrustworthy, but it doesn't hurt to keep reminding.
ReplyDeleteIt's worth noting that the total here reflects six job cuts at The News Journal in Westchester. But several readers say the figure is actually higher: 18.
ReplyDeleteEarlier today, I checked the paper's website for a story about these cuts, but I couldn't find any.
Also, I continue to be surprised that nothing has come out of The Arizona Republic, which rivals USA Today as perhaps GCI's single-biggest worksite. I've checked with at least one Republic source there, but we haven't heard a thing.
ReplyDeleteOne more time...It's The Journal News!
ReplyDeleteArrgh! Sorry about that. Maybe the third time will be the charm.
ReplyDeleteI will not confuse The Journal News and The News Journal . . .
I will not confuse The Journal News and The News Journal . . .
I will not confuse The Journal News and The News Journal . . .
I will not confuse The Journal News and The News Journal . . .
I will not confuse The Journal News and The News Journal . . .
Other than the gotcha factor everyone here loves, I don't understand the fascination with the "significant severance costs" comment. You are talking about a company that has revenue counted in the billions. We don't know out of what pool of money any severance expense will come (it may have already been accounted for). Because of the way they handle layoffs (the much discussed public v. co. $$ debate), the company may not be out a lot of money anyhow. And, to Gracia and a Wall St. guy, it takes a crap load of $$ to be significant. Like tens of millions. Despite being slammed here for it, seems like she may have answered the question fairly and accurately.
ReplyDelete3:01 If you don't see that for the lie it was, I just can't help you.
ReplyDeleteThis could be premature because the layoffs may not be over, but I am also surprised that Ariz. escaped, especially with their housing collapse issues that has to be affecting ads. Also, glancing through the list, I don't see much representation from Wisconsin, which I guess reflects the prosperity of the papers there.
ReplyDelete3:11 pm: The Wisconsin job cuts are all grouped within the Appleton entry; there have been a total of 21. I've entered "0" under the other nine Wisconsin papers, so as to not double-count.
ReplyDelete3:01 p.m.: It's about transparency and full disclosure.
ReplyDeleteMartore told the Wall Street analyst that most of the $7 million in third-quarter severance expense was for USA Today's cutting 130 jobs.
It's fair to assume the analyst thought $7 million was a significant number; otherwise, why ask about Q4 plans in that context?
Martore had an opportunity to say: "I don't know what you mean by 'significant,' so I can't answer." Or, she could have been more candid: Yes, we're planning layoffs, and the associated severance expense will be more than/less than/equal to the $7 million in Q3.
But she didn't. She offered the "not at this present time" reply.
Now, of course, we know the company has eliminated more than 200 jobs so far in this quarter.
Martore knew layoffs were in the works when the analyst asked that question. The number of them, more than 200, rivals the 130 at USAT that cost most of $7 million.
To be sure, it's entirely possible these 200 jobs paid less than the 130 at USAT, so will result in less severance. But we won't know until the next quarterly report, and the conference call with analysts that will follow.
In the old days, a reporter would have called Mike Kupinski of Noble Financial, who asked the original question, and asked him about this "significant" issue. Today, as long as poeple make enough comments, what sources of information say doesn't matter.
ReplyDeleteIn the old days, almost no one covered Gannett. Even then, news coverage was cursory at best.
ReplyDeleteNice excuse. It's still cursory at best, given that you wrote a reply instead of picking up the phone.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to have missed the point. This has all been about how Martore replied to the question.
ReplyDeleteDidn't miss the point at all. I know what was said. I am not as concerned as much as your enflamed masses are. The point you are missing is that you can continue - like the yapping heads on Fox and CNN and MSNBC - to simply roll around the same pea, aghast at every turn, yammering endlessly while adding no facts. Or you could advance the story by doing some reporting. You are always talking about what a great job you do....show us something.
ReplyDeleteOnce again NJ comes forth through this round of layoffs virtually unscathed. Anyone care to bash this tough old state now? I thought not!
ReplyDeleteHere's something about the Jackson layoffs that was on TV. Interesting comments from the public, and no comment from management.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wapt.com/r/25649173/detail.html
6:11 I do seem to recall Jim did call corporate to get an elaboration, but since he didn't post anything further, I assume his phone call was not returned. Neither did corporate return the phone call from the Maynard Institute calling in reference to the two black MEs iced in this round. Read their Web site and you will see. Corporate's p.r. team is pretending this didn't happen or is not newsworthy. Some of us don't see it that way at all.
ReplyDeleteThe Arizona Republic eliminated 4 sales management positions in spring/early summerl and one sales position in mid-July. All 5 of the people were over 50.
ReplyDelete8:46 p.m.: I called the publisher of The Clarion-Ledger in Jackson, Miss. However, I did not call Corporate. I've received no information suggesting that Gannett has changed its policy of not officially cooperating with this blog.
ReplyDelete"Didn't miss the point at all. I know what was said. I am not as concerned as much as your enflamed masses are. The point you are missing is that you can continue - like the yapping heads on Fox and CNN and MSNBC - to simply roll around the same pea, aghast at every turn, yammering endlessly while adding no facts. Or you could advance the story by doing some reporting. You are always talking about what a great job you do....show us something."
ReplyDeleteYes! This is the best post in some time. I notice Jim ignored it.
CNN used to advance stories, but at some point, they decided their typical audience was much like Jim Hopkins -- just wanting people to stir up shit and not to deliver too many facts.
I'm still catching up with some comments.
ReplyDelete6:11 and 10:03 make valid points. I've now written to the analyst in question, asking for more information.
By the way, I really like the "roll around the same pea" metaphor.
ReplyDeleteGlad you came around to that -- after you issued your usual "you don't want this covered" defense.
ReplyDeleteThe Journal News' collapse the last few years has been drastic even when taking into account the nosedive of the entire industry. Incompetent leadership, lack of identity with the community and losing talented well known journalists to competing media outlets have been the roots of this death spiral.
ReplyDeleteGee, and my supervisor said it was just me all that time. Since they got rid of me because as the trolls like to say, I was whiner, they can't blame me for the negativity that runs through the department anymore. And since the real reason for the lack of morale, poor quality hires, bad fires, and even worse promotions was himself been shown the door yesterday (along with the scarecrow, an aforementioned BAD hire), it remains to be seen what will emerge from the ashes. To all my friends at TJN who I miss working with, i'll see you in at the bar tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteTo 12:37 AM: I know who you're referring to and no one will miss him. I hope the door doesn't hit him too hard on his way out. Arrogant and no intelligence. And I don't even work there.
ReplyDeleteNow, if corporate would just wake up and really consider who's running The Journal News....There are two big problems remaining. Which is a shame considering that in years past so many better people were let go.
ReplyDeleteThe Journal News is sinking faster than its newshole is shrinking.
I think the case with Westchester, as far as the adv. dept goes... is that there is a vendetta against some individuals and a desperate attempt to save the favorites. That was made VERY clear from the actions on Monday.
ReplyDelete8:35, my question is with basically just those two remaining, how will the paper function now - not that there is much of a paper, granted. The DMEs for the most part are hardly hard-working, but still did and do all their work. Now they're almost all gone. Are those two even equipped to perform the basic duties that come with being an editor? They have shown nothing to indicate they are.
ReplyDeleteWarning for Gannett-ers whose jobs were recently eliminated: I was one of the people laid off in Jackson,MS last week. I urge all of you to carefully check the wages Gannett reported to your respective states for unemployment purposes. I received a notification from the state of MS yesterday that showed Gannett reported 0 earnings for me in quarter 4 of 2009--NOT true! I had been a full-time Gannett employee, without interruption, since 2005. In my case, the mis-reported earnings did not affect my level of benefit, but if they mis-reported earnings for others who were laid off, it might affect the amount of unemployment compensation they receive.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete10:25, or should I say "corporate troll," I am definitely not a mental case. I just wanted to spare any other laid off employees from obtaining their maximum benefit due to any error on Gannett's part. I may be the only one this happened to, but somehow I doubt it.
ReplyDeleteIs the max Mississippi benefit still $210/week?
ReplyDeleteSorry, in my previous comment, I should have said that I wanted to "spare any other laid off employees from POTENTIALLY BEING DEPRIVED OF obtaining their maximum benefit due to any error on Gannett's part."
ReplyDeleteMS max is now $235 per week.
ReplyDelete9:58 - Good point, but let's not forget, one of "The Two" is the founding sports editor of USA Today, or, as he would pronounce it with that Georgia drawl "USA Dah-Day." He has mentioned this fact once or twice hasn't he??
ReplyDeleteEye Yi Yi...... 10:30 you seem to have no clue and I am not a corporate troll, whatever that means.... I was laid off July of 2009 and your whining about checking wage reporting is ridiculous, I think Gannett is a pathetic company too, but whining about losing your job and how unfair it is give me a break.
ReplyDeleteand 10:30 because you are obviously an idiot......
ReplyDeleteThe maximum Weekly Benefit Amount (WBA) allowed in Mississippi at this time is $235.00. Your WBA for unemployment insurance benefits is based on the total wages in the highest quarter of your Base Period and by dividing that amount by 26. The minimum WBA in Mississippi is $30.00. To estimate your WBA you must first determine what your wages are for the highest quarter during your Base Period. You may find this amount on the Benefit Chart in column A., and your estimated weekly benefit amount will be shown in column B.
To qualify for benefits, you:
Must have worked in at least two quarters of your base period,
Must have earned at least $780.00 in the highest quarter of your base period, and
Must have earned 40 times your weekly benefit amount in your base period.
SO TO SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU, IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT WAS REPORTED IN THE 4TH QUARTER OF 2009 AS LONG AS YOU MADE AT LEAST $780 BUCKS AND IF YOU EARNED $9400 OVER 26 WEEKS OR $18,800 A YEAR YOU WOULD GET THE MAXIMUM....
STOP CONFUSING OTHER PEOPLE AND CHILL OUT!!!!
Westchester should lay off the publisher and maybe things would improve. Fisch has the anti midas touch. Runs everything he touches into the ground. I love the buzz words.
ReplyDeleteI was wondering the same thing about the two remaining top editors at TJN. Could either of them open up a story and edit it in the right format? Create the schedules for the newsroom? Take over editing and pagination for one of the weeklies? Blog about their pets?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete"10:30" Here. To the people who were offended by my attempt to be helpful: If you read my post carefully, I did not whine about having lost my job. I also stated up front that Gannett's error in wage reporting did NOT affect my unemployment benefits in MS. However, I don't know what the rules are in other states, so for all I know, if Gannett made a similar error with someone else, it could negatively affect them. Considering the hostility of your responses ("mental case:" seriously?), it sounds like you are the ones who need to chill out. I'm done with this.
ReplyDeleteI like the benefits discussions here because they always attract the dumbest of the herd.
ReplyDeleteIn 2009, there were a lot of people who didn't understand how COBRA worked and how it was different from not having any health coverage. Instead of trying to educate themselves, they kept trying to pick at what other people were saying, even though the other people were mostly right.
Of course, Jim does nothing to correct the inaccuracies or to get the correct information.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI guess they are now paying corporate people to damage the information. Information getting too close for comfort at the NJ group? or someone on heavy meds....
ReplyDeleteWhen is the consolidation of the NJ group going to happen?
ReplyDeleteWho said it was, 2:10? Are you listening to the spirits without a body?
ReplyDeleteAh too close to comment on. Someone does not like the conversation going in this direction.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteNote: Virtually all the posts I've removed here and on other threads so far today were what I regard as spam.
ReplyDeleteYes, if the information is unconfirmed gossip, then only corporate spies would oppose it.
ReplyDeleteJim has trained you well, drones.
Folks have already mentioned some of TJN's dumbest public moves of the past decade, such as the LoHud and NewsCenterNow rebranding confusion. I'll add my favorite "in a nutshell" anecdote, from a few years back: Gannett decided to outsource the local customer service (aka "I didn't get my paper today") hotline to the "Centers of Excellence" in Kentucky, at the same time as it switch to a cheaper home-delivery company that didn't know the region well.
ReplyDeleteYou can guess what happened. And many, many obviously dumb decisions like that, coming from corporate and/or clueless managers, have cost the paper thousands of subscribers in the past decade. Death by a thousand cuts is right. What's a good reporter/editor to do? (My advice: Update that resume and/or go back to school!)
3:52 Don't go back to get an advanced degree, because it will make you overqualified if you stay in this profession. If you want to become a nuclear physicist, that is another matter.
ReplyDeleteWe are flooded with job-seekers with degrees because newspapers have been absorbing vacancies in this downturn. Some expect a turnaround, but I am not in that camp. I think this recession has been a game-changer as companies _ especially major retailers _ have re-thought their advertising strategies and now are willing to invest only in areas that almost guarantee a response.
Take note of what Jim said at 2:34 and don't respond to some post clearly off-the-wall, ignorant and designed to provoke a response. Enough said on this.
ReplyDeleteThe best-case scenario -- for Journal News readers, staff, and corporate alike -- would be for Gannett to spin off the (original) Rockland part of The Journal News, selling it to some wealthy, community-minded family. A Rockland-only Journal News would do fine as a small, family-owned paper. It was a mistake to ever lump it together with Westchester, which has completely different demographics and a lot more competition.
ReplyDeleteThen, maybe Gannett could figure out a way to salvage a Westchester/Putnam paper. I would recommend letting Rockland have its "Journal News" name back, and go with something new for Westchester/Putnam -- consider it a chance to rebrand again, but thoughtfully this time. (Not LoHud, unless you really can't think of anything better?)
Interesting thought about Westchester 11:48. Agree that Rockland has more of a natural fit as a separate paper. The area's all balkanized in terms of reader interest but Rockland especially so, separated by water, parks, the state border from every other place.
ReplyDeleteI can't believe the cuts are as small as they are. Was thinking 2,000. Whatgives?
ReplyDeleteThe Journal News, the original one in Rockland, operated well until the Gannettoids invaded.
ReplyDeleteThis was not an overnight development. First features was shifted to Westchester. Then the sports and news desks. Then the composing room, followed by the print plant.
Now all of this might have made sense from a purely busines perspective: consolidate and save, right?
I should also mention that few Rockland news personnel were cultivated for leadership positions. Leadership was a Westchester-led parade.
The result was more Westchester news in a Rockland paper read by Rockland people who couldn't less about Westchester. In fact, some of the communities that made regular news, one place called South, I think, comes to mind, were totally unknown in Rockland and remain so.
Nowadays, the Rockland operation is a stripped-down bureau plus the ad dept.
I think a lot of what The Journal News - talking Westchester now, too - lost over the years resulted from the frequently mentioned corporate greed to pinch every penny.
And yet, inexplicably, corporate also gave the local managers bucks to blow on ridiculous and wildly unsuccessful projects, some mentioned in these posts.
Also to blame was Gannett's ass-kissing style of management that contributed to an eventual abnegation of decision-making power to corporate's number crunchers.
The Journal News teeters today as simply another example of how Gannett ruins local newspapers.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete"""I should also mention that few Rockland news personnel were cultivated for leadership positions. Leadership was a Westchester-led parade."""
ReplyDeleteUm, isn't the senior managing editor of TJN the former managing editor of the Rockland edition???
10:40pm...Yes, after she was transferred there from Westchester to begin with.
ReplyDeleteFor all those that remember, the hideous slogan "Reach for the Peach, Reach for Today". I still could not understand why we used that slogan
ReplyDeleteAh yes, the peach-colored newsprint! Not quite as odd as the LA Times' green of years ago, but pretty odd.
ReplyDeleteSome folks mistook the peachy pages for old, yellowed newsprint.