And, they were given specific instructions on what departments and/or positions could not be touched. Which is why you are seeing so many support staff positions.
Also, furloughs are a possibility for first quarter, but it all depends [on the effectiveness of these reductions]. . . . They don't want to do it, but we were told we wouldn't know until December.
As always, I welcome Corporate's response to these readers' assertions. 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.
Why no memos? Do the corporate suits expect to keep this quiet? Do they think no one else will find out?
ReplyDeleteOr, is the concern that the workers will find out more than they NEED to know now, that further steps will be taken farther down the line?
The second reader I mentioned above told me in an e-mail: "All information is being given verbally from the Publisher. Nothing in writing 'to prevent leaks.'"
ReplyDeleteCan't Editor and Publisher weigh in on this and find out what is going on? This is the largest 1st amendment-based company in the country and it is going to Nixonize itself? It's also a public company with responsibilities -- performing proper business goals -- to stock holders. This is insane that Gannett isn't getting any public press other than the good work of Jim.
ReplyDeleteIf they don't tell anyone in a memo, then it never happened. At least that seems to be the rationale. Makes it difficult for the lawyers when/if an age discrimination suit is launched. But don't these corporate idiots realize they are overseeing a news gathering machine that is very atuned to ferreting out any hints of changes.
ReplyDeleteThis would not have to be a top secret mission is Gannett was doing things by the book, I don't think. What's wrong with listing the eliminated positions, and offering an explanation of why the positions are no longer needed in the, um, transformation or whatever the buzz word is now.
ReplyDeleteI think this blog has gotten under someone's thin skin, and she doesn't like it one bit.
ReplyDelete8:37 PM has the right idea. Line up all the positions eliminated, stick an age on the person in the position and wait for lawsuits.
ReplyDeleteHad a friend whose position was eliminated by a very large company in a RIF. She got a letter listing each position eliminated and the age of the person in the position. The letter said something like the information was being given to meet the provisions of the Age Discrimnation in Employment Act.
Well. Guess what? Most of the positions eliminated were mysteriously occupied by people 45 and older.
Why doesn't someone ask for Gannett's list?
They make it far worse for everyone with all this cloak and dagger crap. We had a staff meeting late in the day, but the layoffs all happened in the morning - so all day it's gossip and whispers and worry which turns to anger for no one saying 'Hey, this is what we're doing and why.' Paranoia and distrust continue and I think will get worse since there was no advanced warning this time (aside from the blog).
ReplyDeleteMy Boss has it again. Incredible.
ReplyDeleteGM must be trying to figure out who this is.
The folks let go today at my paper were all younger, actually.
ReplyDeleteThe folks let go today at my paper were all younger, actually.
ReplyDeleteOf course! There's nobody else left! ;-)
Couier Journal laid off 7 today and they posted it on couierjournal.com Garson said it was because rising newsprint prices.Wow good reason what a sad ass publisher
ReplyDelete6 humans laid off in rochester. 4 positions not to be filled.newsprint cited as reason in meeeting. no memo issued. the company isparanoid and now displays no courtessy to workers.
ReplyDeleteOh yeah. Newsprint prices. Pages have already been cut, and as I recall Martore speculated that newsprint costs wouldn't be going up that much.
ReplyDeleteIf newsprint is getting so dear, why not cut some of these useless managers?
From the email Jim posted in part, above:
ReplyDelete"And, they were given specific instructions on what departments and/or positions could not be touched. Which is why you are seeing so many support staff positions."
Was there any elaboration on the departments and/or positions that were not be touched? Were the instructions given globally or was the word given specifically for individual sites?
Or does anyone have a good guess?
11/03/2010 8:51 PM said:
ReplyDeleteWhy doesn't someone ask for Gannett's list?
Response: Why wait for Gannett?
WHY DON'T WE START AN "AGE LAID OFF" LIST ON JIM'S BLOG?
I'll be the first one:
1. Female, NJ / Laid off 12/02/2008 / Age at that time: 50
11/03/2010 8:32 PM
ReplyDeleteJim said...
The second reader I mentioned above told me in an e-mail: "All information is being given verbally from the Publisher. Nothing in writing 'to prevent leaks.'"
Yeah, but remember this: Loose lips sink ships!
Kinda late to try and prevent leaks, especially when this ship has a leak hole larger than the Titanic and appears to be going down without life preservers or, are the layoffs the substitute life preservers?
Furthermore, what a silly excuse! A company in the business of printing newspapers having to layoff because they can hardly afford the print INK! The irony of it all! Bwa ha ha ha ha ha
Male OH/ Laid off 2/5/2010 /Age:31
ReplyDeleteThe exec's have no clue what they are doing. they promote the "good olde boy network" and screw everyone else. 5 years from now Gannett won't be in business because of their constant "transformations"