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. silentbob

    silentbob Member

    Joe sums it up pretty well
     
  2. playthrough

    playthrough Moderator Staff Member



    Paul Tash at St. Pete took a 5 percent cut. That, to me, was really insincere.
     
  3. mediaguy

    mediaguy Well-Known Member

    It's naive to think any newspaper in this climate could make even a handshake agreement to not make layoffs for 3 years. Nobody know when the economy is going to rebound, when newspapers will get out of the downward spiral they're in. So you're saying "I'll take a paycut, but that's the only expense-cutting my newspaper can do for three years, no matter how much revenues drop." What's the paper supposed to do in a year if things have gotten worse as much as they have in the past year?
     
  4. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Um, how about attempting some long-term planning instead of worrying no further than the next fiscal quarter?

    If the paper is saying that they need the pay cuts, I would hope that they have planned in advance to use the saved money as a way to ease the company's financial pain. Otherwise, it's just a panicky gimmick move. Also, what if revenues rebound? Is there a plan to recompensate the employees for the money that they are losing?
     
  5. RedSmithClone

    RedSmithClone Active Member

    Are you serious?

    Most people don't actually live in Boston, but the suburbs.
    And although this sucks, I would agree to this at my shop on my crappy pay to make sure we all have work.
    I do think this is a more feasible thing for workers at the Globe to handle than other smaller papers with weaker unions and less pay. But it does still suck that it seems like an either or situation.

    I also agree that the higher ups better get this 10 percent reduction as well. Shit, why are the people busting their ass to fill the paper punished, while the fat cats, who cannot come up with a solution to bolster circulation numbers or create more ad revenue get higher pay for not doing their jobs?
    This business is F'n messed up.
    And they wonder why journalists are bitter and sarcastic with everything.
     
  6. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member


    Pretty much, yes. We're not talking New York here, but we are talking by-God Boston.

    Now, Boston's not my cup of tea, but if I desired to be a citizen of Greater Bostonia, I'd need better than $72K (BEFORE taxes? Yipes) to live in anything better than a second-rate hovel without facing a commute from death (in BOSTON traffic!&%*@!) which would now of course be more expensive than it's ever been.

    Wholly agree that the suits better take a comparable percentage hit on ALL company-generated income, including annual bonuses and budgeted travel.
    Not to do so is "Let them eat cake" of the worst sort.
     
  7. Googlaw

    Googlaw Member

    Whatever happened to just being grateful you have a job?
     
  8. jfs1000

    jfs1000 Member

    $72k in boston? Look up the median home price, assume you have no debt, and then see if you can buy something that doesn't suck. Hope your wife makes $50 grand.

    Anyhow, are they allowing raises for next year? A 10 pecent pay cut, followed by no raise, is essentially a 15 percent cut.

    I don't think this is feasible in this climate with rising gas prices. Your gas usage has doubled and now they want to take $5000 away from you?

    A 10 percent pay cut will destroy a ton of people.

    All of a sudden, you are out double, and haven't improved your quality of life a bit.

    The sad thing is, it would be better for everyone to have layoffs. That way,those that stay can at least maintain their own standard of living. Sacrifice a few for the good of the many. Don't extend the misery to all.

    You make the call.
     
  9. Joe Williams

    Joe Williams Well-Known Member

    You're talking about a near-five percent raise? Wow! That's like two raises at most places these days, at least among those that actually give them out.

    This industry, by the day, is getting more like a case study from an ethics class: Should all the people in the lifeboat die nobly, or should some of them survive by eating a fellow passenger? If it's the former, then everyone is screwed. If it's the latter, there is going to be a really, really big hit to the humanity of those who carry on. Along with all sorts of nightmares and guilt.

    All because we're doing the bidding of absolute jerkoffs who control the purse strings.
     
  10. Easy. Just shit-can the 10% of the people who suck at their jobs.... Or fire 15% and give some of their money in raises to those who are left. Right?
     
  11. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    Sure, as long as the job pays for you to have food, and a roof over your head. Thing is, most journalists are college graduates. While they understand that they have to make some sacrifices (financial and time) to be in a profession they love, they also went to college to have a better standard of living than high school grads. Cutting your pay ain't going to give you a better standard of living.
     
  12. I hope this is sarcasm.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page