"The program is completely voluntary for these valued, long-term employees. They have helped us achieve much over the years and their work is greatly appreciated."
-- Evan Ray, president of Gannett Publishing Services, in a memo reported today, announcing a buyout offer for 160 employees.
"The program is completely voluntary for these valued, long-term employees. They have helped steer a strong and steady course for the company for many years, including through recent challenging economic times, and their work is deeply appreciated."
-- USA Today Publisher Larry Kramer in a March memo, announcing a similar buyout offer for about 160 of the paper's employees.
The language in these kind of memos doesn't happen by accident. Typically, it gets reviewed by the Law Department, Human Resources, and others. That's why the phrasing often appears the same.
ReplyDeleteAlso because no one in senior management bothers to take 5 seconds to come-up with anything original or meaningful. No one really cares.....just get the old folks out as quickly as possible. We have become a rudderless, soul-less shell of our former selves.
DeleteAt my site when the buyouts first began, we didn't even get that. There was no statement, not even the cookie-cutter template stuff. Just silence. One day, a bunch of people -- longtime co-workers -- were just gone, dust in the wind. Poof. What a great company, eh? And when they finally got around to me (laid off as I didn't qualify for the buyouts even though I was old enough ["You three aren't being offered buyouts. You're necessary," said the publisher with HR in the room], for all the years of service I didn't even get a freaking card. No one did. The only person who made any effort to say ANYTHING was the then director of HR. At least he was sincere. Not a word, though -- not one, from my department's actual boss, his supervisor, its director... and god forbid the publisher who strolled by in his sweater, whistling a tune, while some now-unemployed people had tears on their faces.
DeleteAs anyone will tell you who's been around the block a few times and seen his or her share of RIFs — multiple times from both sides of the table — there's no good way to do them. It is what it is, and all you can do is move on.
Delete12:51,
DeleteAgree that there is really no good way to do these.....but there are BETTER ways and this company doesn't even bother to find them.
How is this shit legal? I mean these empty suits turn a phrase or two and somehow that means it isn't age discrimination? Early retirement? C'mon.
ReplyDeleteOne has to wonder if age discrimination isn't the most under-reported form of discrimination out there. And it's not just Gannett and USA Today that seem to be repulsed by retaining or, God forbid, hiring anyone over 50. Just read job ads and you will see code words like "energetic" that make it clear that mid and late-career professionals need not apply. Seems to be zero teeth in U.S. labor laws.
In time, I am sure the Gannetts of the world will be dragged into court for this crap. I mean there is a growing number of really pissed baby boomers who aren't prone to taking a bunch of corporate crap lying down, particularly when it impacts their ability to put food on the table.
But until then, boy it is a crappy feeling working for a company that doesn't treat its elders with any respect, unless those elders are sitting in a corner office.
Hey, USAT and Gannett, who the Hell do you think built your freakin' Crystal Palace? Some internet geek who won't work weekends or holidays? No, it was the now-senior people who did all the dirty work that made sure the paper(s) got out on time at midnight or whenever you suits were snoozing away late at night. And this is the way your reward us? With your damn "early retirement" plans?
Young'uns, take note. Leave Gannett before you get too old. Better yet, don't work there at all because it's an immoral company that has been immoral for longer than many of you have been on this planet.
All this hatred on here isn't just a figment of people's imagination or sour grapes. It's real. It's serious. And if the younger generation has any scruples, it won't be a part of this evil empire. At least not for long.
That may be the case in help-wanted ads.
DeleteBut in buyouts, companies go after the highest-paid, most costly employees first, because that's where the cost-savings are biggest.
If for some reason all the youngest workers got paid the most, and had the highest medical bills, you'd see the reverse -- and a company's workforce would grow older, not younger.
Gannett cares less about your age, and more about what you cost them.
The only way an older worker could avoid being targeted for buyouts or layoffs would be if they: 1) agreed to take a pay cut and, 2) agreed to not accept medical coverage. But the latter isn't practical or possible if they are to remain an employee. They would have to become an independent contractor.
12:32, best post, eloquent and accurate at once, I've seen on Hopkins' blog. It's not imagination and it's not sour grapes. The corporate cheerleaders that show up here with juvenile insults can spew all the rah-rah stuff they like, but they can't change the fact of what so many people have experienced first-hand not just in isolated incidents but throughout the company, and not just at one particular time but now comprising a pattern defined by the last few years.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteWhat is it about the journalism profession that attracts such petulant crybabies?
DeleteExcellent question, 12:34. I think it starts with their idea that if they really, really, REALLY want to be a journalist, then they should be able to get a chair and do next to nothing for 40-50 years. The lack of skills also comes into play.
DeleteKramer's a slight improvement over the truly loathsome bunch that somehow conned Gannett into letting them take over SPORTS. First, they ritually humiliated the entire staff by making them "reapply" for jobs when everybody knew they were doing it to avoid lawsuits from the people they were about to can.
ReplyDeleteThen they fired a whole bunch of people, many of them the top producers in SPORTS, either because they made too much money or because they ran afoul of traitorous editors trying to curry favor with the new bosses.
What did Beusse, Morgan & Co have to say after firing these people and setting them adrift with one week's severance for each year worked in the worst job market of the last 50 years?
They issued some corporate doublespeak about how it was all part of becoming a "new and better" USAT SPORTS. Not a word of thanks or appreciation for what all these people had done. Not one.
No wonder nobody wants to work there. No wonder nobody wants to advertise. No wonder the NYT and WSJ are laughing at these clowns. Joe Posnanski left skid marks he left so fast.
More than ever, however, there's crushing pressure on Beusse & Co. to deliver promised digital revenue.
DeleteOtherwise, Gannett's going to be in a world of hurt, starting in two months when the third quarter begins.
It's worth noting, 2:01, that Kramer once endorsed the Beusse strategy.
DeleteSports Media has build a huge, high priced infrastructure only to find that they are generating about as much, if not LESS, revenue than before SMG. That reality is settling-in and panic is full-on. I see it every single day.
DeleteWhoops. Not like that happened under VP creator Hunke.
DeleteIn the USAT offer, there was a stronger implication of possible layoffs if they didn't get enough volunteers, when Kramer said: "At this time we are offering this program instead of pursuing other restructuring and cost management actions."
ReplyDeleteStock is up, Dow is up! I am happy. You happy?
ReplyDeleteOver the past two months lots of posts here saying, "When I am I going to get a buyout?" It shows up and everyone is wringing their hands. I don't get it. You want it or you don't. You don't hav eto take it. Look at the paper and throw it away if you don't want to take it.
ReplyDelete3:51:
DeleteI have been one of those posters. And I'm still waiting and hoping and . . .
It is quite funny to see that people that work at GANNETT actually believe that their managers care about them leaving. They don't! Get over it. Don't flatter yourself by thinking your more important than the next by still being there. Believe me- your time will come! FACT!
ReplyDeleteI play a game with your posts now. When I see one in the side rail, I count how many words it takes before I know it's you. This time, the all-caps GANNETT was the giveaway.
DeleteIt's sort of like Name That Tune. With you, it's Name That Broken Record.
Great point by Jim. Beusse, Morgan and Co. threw out some of the top producers in SPORTS, many who won awards for the paper they thought was their was home, then acted like they never existed.
ReplyDeleteGood old Kramer played right along. Not a word of thanks or appreciations. Just corporate babble about how great things were going to be. Meanwhile, ignore the empty desks and pictures on the wall that used to be your colleagues. They're non-people now. They never existed. They're not important. It was like the Soviet Union.
Well guess what Kramer, you had a chance to give the Sports newsroom some sliver of dignity and hope -- but you just couldn't do it, could you? You're as bad if not worse than Beusse, Morgan and their sycophants. They'll all be gone within two years. In the meantime, they will have managed to destroy dozens of careers and lives. Nice work USA TODAY.
Sports Business Journal's piece this week on Hiestand is copied below.
DeleteReading between the lines in that 2nd to last paragraph, I get the sense that it really is about the direction of Usat Sports for him leaving. And I don't blame him. Yes, the focus is digital, digital growth a expense of quality.
*******
Sports TV columnist leaving USA Today, ‘ready to try new things’
By John Ourand, Staff Writer
Published May 6, 2013
After spending the past 23 years writing USA Today’s influential sports TV column, Michael Hiestand is leaving the paper.
Hiestand confirmed to executives last week that he was taking a buyout that was offered to all long-term USA Today reporters and editors.
Late last month, several veteran USA Today sportswriters, including columnists Jon Saraceno and Mike Lopresti, told USA Today editors that they were accepting the buyout, which consists of two weeks of pay for every year worked at the paper up to a year. Last week, they made it official.
Hiestand’s last day at the newspaper will be Thursday.
“They came out with a buyout offer about six weeks ago,” Hiestand said. “In terms of last week, I pretty much decided by then. It wasn’t based on USA Today or any small details. I’m just ready to try new things.”
After taking a few weeks off, Hiestand plans to move from Washington, D.C., to New York and begin looking for work. He has twin daughters who will be starting college in the fall.
“I want to stay in reporting and writing,” he said. “I think what anybody in media brings to the party is the ability to do some reporting and telling people something they didn’t know or talking to people, as opposed to just writing down your opinion.”
Hiestand started writing the paper’s TV column in 1990, and he described journalism today as more rooted in technology — including posting items to the Internet quickly — than gumshoe reporting, but he predicted that would soon change.
“Right now, we’re in a phase where we’ll look back and think that it was all about the technology, centered on how quickly you can get a URL up so that if somebody Googles a topic, your story will be one of the first ones that comes up,” he said. “I think media networks are going to have to be more aggressive about getting their own stories out in an interesting and factual way.”
The move comes about a year after USA Today let go of 15 staffers, including writers Michael McCarthy, Tom Weir, Tom Pedulla and Mike Dodd. In 2011, USA Today hired sports business veteran Tom Beusse to run the Sports Media Group and Dave Morgan to oversee editorial. It placed more focus on breaking news and developing the paper’s digital offerings.
Kramer and Callaway are enamored with the pretty young girls who populate the newsroom and make pretend they are actual journalists. Beyond creepy. I guess it is easier to deal with naive young things than peers who can see through their carpetbagging b.s.
DeleteBuesse and Morgan will fail. They already have, in fact. But they'll stay on until it is obvious to Gracia and Kramer. Then, they'll slink off with their pockets full of cash. Gracia will still be looking for that $300 mil in revenue they promised. Good luck finding it.
ReplyDeleteLarry will have an opportunity to thank those accepting buyout offers at a Thursday party. Unfortunately, he doesnt know most of their names. More unfortunate is the fact that the buyouts didnt get rid of some of the fattest salaries on the payroll. It would be one thing if these managers and star journalists mattered in terms of expertise, production or content. But they dont. So what we'll have left is a less experienced staff managed by an even more bloated management team. This is as bad for morale as rhe hyped up, phony Hub ar the center of the newsroom.
ReplyDeleteAnd this friends outside of Tyson's is what is wrong with USAT! Grumble at everything, everyone is stupid, all decisions are bad, all changes are worthless. Whine, whine, whine. These few naysayers are the same who think the column about a guy's dog is great journalism and the TV guy is over worked.
Deletehttp://www.usatoday.com/story/life/2013/05/07/final-word-craig-wilson-farewell/2112347/
ReplyDeleteLarry is a poseur. Callaway's version of the Big Picture is seeing how many Twitter followers one has. Twiddle Dee and Twiddle Dumb. If only they could hear what senior managers who kiss their arses actually say behind their backs.
ReplyDelete4:17 GANNETT GANNETT GANNETT GANNETT GANNETT GANNETT
ReplyDeleteGANNETT GANNETT GANNETT, Broken record!
Two notes. You shouldn't make it so easy.
Delete5:34 That's funny GANNETT GANNETT GANNETT GANNETT GANNETT GANNETT GANNETT GANNETT GANNETT
ReplyDeleteFace it, Larry, you are winging it, here. You need to keep the print product alive for the ad revenue, but its so badly edited that people dont want to pay for the product. Youve got scores of editors who go to meetings and do littlle else. Youve brought in your boy Callaway, who has no feel for managing people or broad initiatives, unless sending memos about news alerts and tweaking headlines is anyone's idea of major big think.
ReplyDeleteYou've just seen 10% of staff walk outnthe door and you still have a fat payroll to deal with. The Hub? What is the point?
Please come up with specifics about taking "the iconic brand" into the future. Please roll up your sleeves and immerse yourselve in the newsrooms. There are great needs here, mostly because leadership has been consistently bad for years. Stop ignoring them.
The Hub is part of a broader, important companywide initiative: Project Butterfly.
DeleteI should add that if it is true, as I've been told by one reader, that USAT does not plan to replace the 10% who are leaving with new staffers more experienced in reporting in a digital world -- well, I don't see how USAT will survive.
DeleteWhat is the paper's niche? What differentiates it from hundreds of other heavily trafficked websites that already publish the same commodity news around politics, business, sports, technology, health, entertainment and celebrities?
The spin on the new USAT, relaunched last September, was that it was going to capitalize on its heritage -- pushing visual storytelling into new territory.
But I haven't seen anything significantly different and certainly not better. As I've said before, mediocre photographs (that everyone else has too) published even bigger do not equal visual story telling. That's just big mediocre photos.
And the idea of more pronounced voices might have worked. But now, this month, Kramer's first anniversary as publisher, where are those voices? The only one I can think of is Michael Wolff, the once weekly media columnist who's created zero buzz.
USAT needs fresh, original, exclusive content -- stuff that's not available anywhere else. With 10% fewer editorial staff, it will become even more of an aggregator of content that's already appeared somewhere else.