With another Gannett site reportedly asking current employees to reapply for work, I asked Gannett Blog's resident human resources professional to explain how these reorganizations work for both the company, and the employee. Here are my questions, and her answers:
What are the advantages?
Making sure you have the right person with the right skills in the right positions. If you have someone whose job has evolved into a more technological one but they're the worst one in the department as far as technical skills, you don't want them in that position. It also gives you an idea of who actually has buy-in on the reorganization. Ones who do, may apply for multiple positions, whereas a sportswriter, for example, may only apply for a sportswriter position and is not willing to branch out.
What about disadvantages?
It may actually be a reduction in force in disguise. You may currently have 60 people, but with the reorganization, there will only be 50 positions, so 10 people aren't going to have positions after you finish playing ring around the rosie. You may lose some quality folks this way, or it may end up as last-in, first-out.
Are there legal issues that come into play?
Yes. By doing it "by the book" and having everyone apply, you can avoid the claims of unlawful discrimination by treating everyone the same. There is no disparate impact. However, when you get to the point in my example above, and you're going to RIF someone, you'd better make sure your demographics won't get you into trouble. This is where they run the names and info through Corporate HR and the Law Department before releasing the final list. Also, if they are smart, they will give everyone new offer letters and job descriptions (if they have changed) to define what their position is, so there will be no confusion down the line.
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.
What are the advantages?
Making sure you have the right person with the right skills in the right positions. If you have someone whose job has evolved into a more technological one but they're the worst one in the department as far as technical skills, you don't want them in that position. It also gives you an idea of who actually has buy-in on the reorganization. Ones who do, may apply for multiple positions, whereas a sportswriter, for example, may only apply for a sportswriter position and is not willing to branch out.
It may actually be a reduction in force in disguise. You may currently have 60 people, but with the reorganization, there will only be 50 positions, so 10 people aren't going to have positions after you finish playing ring around the rosie. You may lose some quality folks this way, or it may end up as last-in, first-out.
Are there legal issues that come into play?
Yes. By doing it "by the book" and having everyone apply, you can avoid the claims of unlawful discrimination by treating everyone the same. There is no disparate impact. However, when you get to the point in my example above, and you're going to RIF someone, you'd better make sure your demographics won't get you into trouble. This is where they run the names and info through Corporate HR and the Law Department before releasing the final list. Also, if they are smart, they will give everyone new offer letters and job descriptions (if they have changed) to define what their position is, so there will be no confusion down the line.
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.
Jim: You may want to fix the typo (the pronoun) in the third subhead.
ReplyDeleteWow this HR pro sounds like they have months and months of experience.
ReplyDelete5:41 Thank you.
ReplyDelete5:57 Please tell us about your HR credentials.
Why so you can do one of your "balanced" pieces. You HR expert sounded like they were reading text right out of Lawyers Monthly. Nothing insightful or innovative. Time to get a different "expert."
DeleteThey can take my two weeks notice when they ask me to reapply for my job which now involves three other people's jobs who have been laid off. Go for it HR! You seem to not have a freaking clue what the hell is going on in your company.
ReplyDeleteSo if you can actually do four people's jobs does that mean you were sleeping through your previous one job?
DeleteIf you choose not to reapply for any jobs do you get transitional pay?
ReplyDeleteDoes the HR professional have a name?
ReplyDeleteNo but he is much happier in his new job, his salary is higher and he pays half for benefits. Isn't that hiw the story of the unnamed person at the unnamed company always plays out????
ReplyDeleteAdvantages?
ReplyDeleteAt least you know the hangman's here. No longer have to look over your shoulder.
Very amateurish HR type. Sounds like they already work for Gannett.
Why hasn't management (Hunke, where the fuck are you?) said anything to the rest of staff since Beusse's Mitt Romney speech to Sports one week ago? Susie, how about some "communication" ? Unfucking believable. Hope the bonus for cutting editorial is a good one. You certainly earn it!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete10:55 I remove copy-and-paste comments.
ReplyDeleteThis HR pro tells it like it is. We pawns thank you for your insight into corporate games.
ReplyDeleteHere's the HR pro in action, at a Gannett paper:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WneZX3EtH-I&feature=related
That wasn't a copy-and-paste comment, Jim. People here don't understand how benefits work. They haven't since the first COBRA discussion here in July 2009.
ReplyDeleteIf you are serious on cracking down, though, why don't you start with the guy who posts the same "Why don't you leave" stuff every day? You can always spot his posts from the bad typing.
The "reapplying" at the smaller New Jersey papers was nothing less than a blood letting. People with decades of experience, many award winning photographers and writers were put through the degrading process only to be "denied" employment at the jobs they did so well for years. It was a thinly disguised lay-off and those with the most time and highest amount of time and gray hairs seemed to be let go. Oh yes, they kept enough veterans around to be defense-able in court against an ageism lawsuit.
ReplyDeleteBut no one was fooled. Some veterans didn't bother to reapply because they saw the futility of it all.
The readers weren't fooled either. Fred Snowflack, the long time editorial page editor and county political writer was allowed to write a farewell column and there were readers who wrote letters in response (some of which were published) telling the paper they were leaving too, as customers.
All and all, it represented the gutting of the DR, the HNT and the C-N. And now they want to put up paywalls? Not to disparage the hard working people left there, but they have little left to sell.
I hope Mr DuBrow can sleep at night knowing he drove the company into this disgraceful condition. Shame!
It was a joke. The interviewers acted like anyone over 40 was useless and outdated. Some interviewers were half asleep. Most older reporters actually knew and used technology but were shown the door. The HNT, AP, DR and NJ papers served their regions well. Sad they were ripped to shreds. Not just Snowflack, either. A lot of talent and devoted people who brought readership got the boot.
Delete12:21 That's a fair appoint. I'll keep a closer eye on those posts.
ReplyDeleteThis statement from your HR pro I don't agree with: Ones who do, may apply for multiple positions, whereas a sportswriter, for example, may only apply for a sportswriter position and is not willing to branch out.
ReplyDeleteA sportswriter may be applying for one job because this person may feel it's their best shot at any of the new jobs. Or frankly, may not like any of the new ones.
Someone else may just be playing the numbers, hoping to get anything.
If this process is as noble as some claim, this wouldn't be necessary: "you're going to RIF someone, you'd better make sure your demographics won't get you into trouble."
If this method, which has its merits in some organizations and at different times or is part of the culture, is as simple as righting an organization -- everyone or at the very least senior management, HR folks, senior execs also would have to reapply for jobs. A person isn't necessarily committed to a company's goal by nature of their title.
I am so fucking frustrated with this company. Is there some management directive to make people feel so shitty they'll leave on their own? Is this the Purpose Plan Martore was talking about?
ReplyDelete@1:52 AM - That's why I left. The crapfest my department became made it not worth the paycheck. And If you are working for Gannett for anything other than a paycheck, you are a sucker.
ReplyDeleteWhy aren't gannett's hr people providing Sports any info regarding this program? Options. Time table. Counseling sessions. Anything?????
ReplyDeleteInformation coming today. Relax.
ReplyDeleteYes-- they treat you like crap so that you leave on your on accord. Duh!
ReplyDeleteI live to see the day they ask for everyone to reapply for their jobs and no one shows up. I honestly think this is what it's going to take for the CP to wake up to the mess they've created.
ReplyDelete8:39 re: treatment. Yes, experienced that first hand. My supervisor told me that exact same thing as he leaned over and whispered in my ear. Man, did he have bad breath. He tried everything. Changes of shifts, often within days of each other. Nights. Grave. Days. Graves. Deriding my personal lifestyle in front of coworkers. Making slanderous and false statements about my prior employment history. But I ignored the treatment, his agenda, and just kept doing good work for my own self-respect, a work ethic (major concept). Pissed him off even more, little veins bulging in his neck and forehead to the point of bursting (well, one had hoped, but no dice).
ReplyDeleteThis is amusing. At my execution, I was told I could reapply as a clerk in Obituaries.
ReplyDeleteEthically, it's been repulsive to me ever since Gannett instituted a "for profit" policy: if you can't cough up the bucks, baby, somebody's death, dear to you, isn't worth noting.
I'll have no hand in that, this "That will be $250," said to some bereaved party. Pass.
I was also told I could apply for a position a copy editor in Sports. At night.
I already put in my time on nights. Seven years of it before being permitted days.
But the hilarious thing to me was that I have no experience in Sports. None! So much for the chances of getting that job, and
so much for "re-applying."
4:23
ReplyDeleteMost other papers have always charged for "Obituaries" death notices were always included where I came from. Death costs money, it's sad, but the newspaper obituary is the cheapest thing they will deal with.
Since some of you have taken pot shots at my credibility, I'll give you some of my background. I'd still like to remain somewhat anonymous. I spent over 6 years with Gannett until I was ousted in the HR reorganization. I've been on both sides of the RIF table. I know what goes on as they go through these processes. So, let's go back through the questions Jim asked me:
ReplyDeleteWhat are the advantages of what Gannett is doing?
Again, it's a way for them to rearrange people to put them into positions for what Gannett will call "the newsroom of the future." If you were around during the conversion to the LIC, this is the same sort of thing. It will show who is really committed to their jobs. My example of the sportswriter was not meant to disparage all sportswriters, but just an example. You could have someone who has worked the education beat or the government beat and that's all they really want to do, but they feel they have a better chance at keeping their jobs if they also apply for say a position in lifestyle. And yes, it could be a barometer for Gannett to see who has really drunk the koolaid.
Disadvantages:
For Gannett, they may not have enough people apply for the new positions or too many apply for some and not enough for others. I really see this as a RIF in disguise. If you have 40 positions now but are only advertising 35, then you know 5 of your coworkers are either going to get the axe or walk. They probably won't know the exact number until they get the buyouts complete. You may also end up with people doing jobs that they aren't happy doing or don't feel that's the best use of their skills. To use my sportswriter example, you've got a great sports guy who does a bang up job covering a certain area, but they decide as part of the reorg, they are no longer going to include that area in their coverage. That's going to cause some long hard thinking. And it will probably result in the loss of some great talent.
Legal issues:
The name of the game for Gannett is CYA. That's one of the reasons they post these notices so that everyone knows what they are going to do. That's why Gannett legal and corporate HR review the changes. They want to be sure they can't be sued. If they are renaming positions, etc. I would want to see a copy of the new job description for the position before throwing my hat into the ring for any position. Since I'm no longer there, I don't know if they are doing it. I don't know if they plan to issue new offer letters and I can't remember if we did it for the LIC transition. If I were involved, I'd want a copy of my new JD and a new offer letter that confirms that's my new title to go with the JD. More than likely, it will still be Reporter I, etc so they can avoid being specific about someone's job duties. Remember, this is all about what's good for Gannett and how they can do it without being sued. It's not about the employees.
I hope this clarifies my answers to Jim. He does know my true identity and I have been a regular supporter of this blog for quite a bit. If these answers are still insufficient, let me know what you would like clarified.
Thank you! ;)
ReplyDeleteHR Pro:
ReplyDeleteThat is a better/clearer explanation than what appears to be a truncated version first posted.
It is a RIF in disguise, plain and simple. Transformation should and must occur throughout an organization and it starts at the top. That hasn't occurred in this company. Frankly, the company needs a new board, have them reapply.
Applying for multiple jobs increases your chances of getting rehired -- yes. That is assuming you're liked and seen as someone easy to work with. Remember, this also provides cover for getting rid of people (sweeping the bus) who you don't like. It's not difficult to craft things in a way that eliminates people from qualifying or being among top candidates.
I've seen G even play games with seniority in eliminating a job in a HR department.
But no one should assume that means anyone applying for multiple jobs has drank the Koolaid. It's about survival for the employee, and for the smart ones it's a delay that allows them to plan their next move while collecting a check (assuming they get hired.)
To think that someone applying for multiple jobs is an indication of who are believers in a movement is naive and shows a lack of understanding people and what motivates them. That's not a slam. I've noticed this mistaken assumption among way too many HR and out-of-touch execs.
I want people who have to reapply for jobs to go into the process with their eyes wide open. They're stronger for knowing this.
Thanks for helping Jim.
So we get a couple of breathless happy talk memos from top brass this week and they completely ignore talking to staff about the upheaval in Sports.
ReplyDeleteNote to management: this is the most upheaval the paper has experienced in 30 years. Think of it as an earthquake that has left a core part of your organization teetering and the rest of the place experiencing aftershocks.
Why aren't you addressing any of this to your employees? Are you that clueless?
10:24 - can you post these happy memos? They might make for some amusing Friday fodder.
ReplyDelete5:18, I'm a relic, I admit. Obits were once gratis. The grander ones were paid for, ghost written even (a pun!), but a freakin' simple notice? Free. Considered a comp for the funeral home's ad contract.
ReplyDeleteNow, no dice. Zip. Zero. The effect of this is that it killed yet another reason to check out the paper, all in the quest for profit -- which turns out to be as short-sighted as anything in the current media models poisoning their own demographic.
HR Pro's post is one of the reasons I check this blog. Once in a while, good information, parsed like a professional would. Trouble is, Gannett got rid of most.
ReplyDelete