1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Boston Globe is not cutting jobs, but wants to cut pay 10%

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by 2muchcoffeeman, Jun 27, 2008.

  1. 2muchcoffeeman

    2muchcoffeeman Active Member


  2. zebracoy

    zebracoy Guest

    I've often wondered about this myself, trying to determine whether it would be better to have everyone take a pay cut rather than having people gone and more work for the survivors.

    I guess we're about to find out.
  3. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    The union should agree to it if The Globe agree to no layoffs for three years....

    Fair is fair...
  4. Riddick

    Riddick Active Member

    I know I would mind taking a 10% cut if it means people i know aren't forced into unemployment.
  5. That's a hell of a paycut to take, considering the way everything is soaring in price around us.

    I mean, I understand that if it prevents layoffs it prevents layoffs. But when's the last time anyone ever gave an across-the-board 10 percent RAISE?

    My family budget, stretched to the limit right now, would be devastated by a 10 percent paycut.
  6. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    It's a cop out. After the union tells them to stick it, they'll say, "Well, we have no choice but to start letting people go..."
  7. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Does this 10 percent cut go for everybody? Including CEOs, top executives and shareholders? If they want employees to feel the pain, then so should the top earners.

    And I echo Mizzou's proposal. Otherwise, why should employees agree to less money if they can just be dumped six months from now?
  8. agateguy

    agateguy Member

    I agree with Waylon, and add that it's not just a 10 percent pay decrease, it's more than that because the price of commodities continues to rise and I can't see the ceiling. And why would I accept a 15, 20, 25 percent pay cut when my job might be gone in the fall?

    If this is done, then people who can find a second job (one that doesn't present a conflict with the newspaper) to help pay the bills have to be allowed to do so.
  9. I cannot even fathom making it to a paper like the Boston Globe, and then having to get a second job to make ends meet. What a joke.
  10. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    Yeah, for most of them the cuts will be from $80K to $72K.

    A big hit, but not exactly poverty.
  11. I knew someone was going to bring this up. You budget according to what you make. I know that people making $12/hour are probably reluctant to have much sympathy, but it's not going to be an easy hit for people who were counting on that 10 percent for college tuitions, etc., etc., who had, say, a third child because that extra 10 percent allowed them to.

    Sure, $72K might seem like pennies from heaven to a lot of us in this profession, but it's still like 1/2 of what a first-year investment banker or law associate would make in Boston. Not exactly independently wealthy.
  12. agateguy

    agateguy Member

    72K wouldn't be that much of a hit, true, unless you were buried in consumer debt.

    For someone making, say, between 25 and 40K, a 10 percent cut would hurt and a second job would possibly be a necessity, not a joke.

    My thoughts aren't just for Globe employees, it's for all of us, because if the Globe does this you know other papers will try this too.

    And while it may be a joke for someone making 60K to get a second job, someone making half of that may find it a necessity just to keep saving up for retirement, or to help pay the bills.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page