Buyouts Could Deplete Talent - gosh, ya think?

Schools have done the same thing over the years. Buy out the veteran teachers and hire new/cheaper ones. Let's check standardized test scores -- or just the ability of college students to write coherently -- and see how that's working out.

(And no, I'm not slamming teachers in general -- my wife is one. Just pissed about this kick-the-oldsters-out-first mentality that's spreading to newspapers).

 

Coming Sunday in the Washington Post:
Part one of a 12-part investigation. Water falling from the sky, accompanied by loud rumbles. What does it mean?

 

God is pissing on you, while simultaneously passing gas.

 

Joe: Awesome.

 

Sunday's front page: BEAR SHITS IN WOODS

 

Is there a sidebar with that or does it tie in to the water from the sky passing gas bit?

 

See, the age issue depends, I think, on what paper you're with.

I don't know who on this thread works for a guild shop or not, but I did, and in a guild newspaper it's the older staffers who are much safer with their jobs. Or at least that's what happened with the paper I got laid-off from in October.

When upper management decided to do layoffs within the guild, the only way to do it without targeting individual employees was to just lop off the people at the bottom of the guild based solely on seniority. Unfortunately, I was very close to making the cut, but I didn't.

As a consequence, they got rid of several younger workers who were still lower on the pay scale and didn't have all the benefits and frills (like five weeks of vacation) of the more senior guild members. Hence, they got rid of cheap, hard-working manpower instead of a few people who had basically mailed it in and were collecting their checks on their way to retirement.

I'm not saying all 50-something reporters have this attitude, not ny any means, but it seems that when a company does layoffs, they should take into account other factors besides just age and guild seniority. Like, how about job performance? Wouldn't that be fairer and better for both sides?

 

Fairer and better is whatever layoff system has been negotiated at the bargaining table, at a guild paper.

And just so you know, stix, (since you say you are a younger worker recently laid off), your job performance -- for internal purposes like this -- is never more or less than what your current supervisor says it is. Three bosses in a row could love your ass and consider you to be Grantland Rice's long-lost love child, but if the fourth boss -- the current boss -- likes someone else and thinks you're dog meat, then you're dog meat when the next ax drops. A whole lot of the problems in newsrooms and newspapers come from the fact that quality is a subjective thing.

 

Joe, I've heard that argument a lot (as a fairly new worker at a Guild paper with seniority-based layoffs, it's the argument the union leadership always uses to explain why they fight for seniority protection), and I don't entirely disagree with it.

But these days, it basically makes me feel like dog meat walking. Because it means that no matter how hard I work, or how well I do my job, I'm toast if we have sizable layoffs. So, beyond pride in my work, what's my motivation?

Also, turnover in this business being what it is, there's a lot of younger people in newsrooms working under contracts they didn't get to vote on, and, for understandable reasons, Guild locals tend to be run, and contracts negotiated, by the people who've been there a long time, who have lots of seniority. So protecting those who are senior becomes a priority for the union.

I don't claim to know the right answer -- I've seen editors with 25 years at my paper, and very good senior reporters at non-guild papers - get tossed out the door just like that. And that's a shitty way to treat people -- but I get a little frustrated with this blanket "seniority is the only fair way to handle layoffs" approach. Because it's not.

 

Agreed. It's not the only fair way. I'm just saying that, for many union contracts, it is the way that was collectively bargained. Maybe the next round of talks change that, to some sort of formula of pay or age or performance evaluation (if you trust whatever system the bosses have for that). Everything you've said about the scales tipping in favor of those already in place is true.

It would be nice if all industries were meritocracies, especially sportswriting, since we cover endeavors that are about as pure in that way -- you make the team or you get cut on merit -- as there is. But -- and this is what my second graf got at -- any other critieria is likely to be unfair, too. It is extremely doubtful that any staff reductions will get made as purely as the inverse order in which we'd get picked, playground-style, to participate. Some bosses are susceptible to brownnosing. Some colleagues update the supervisors with every incremental step of their work process, to announce how much effort they're giving. Somebody at the next desk is related to the department manager's sister-in-law. Somebody else is perceived as no threat whatsoever to move up or move out or make a current boss feel insecure.

Or maybe every time a newsroom wants to shed 10 percent of its staff, everyone should vote and identify who they think is most deserving of unemployment.

At least "last in, first out" keeps current managers from dumping all over their predecessors' hires while favoring their own, at a most critical time. They might funnel the raises (!) in that direction or the plum assignments, but they can't just leave old George or Sheila out at the curb because they took over as department head, like, two minutes ago.

I've seen too many situations where a ladder-climbing manager spends a year or two in a department, completely capsizes staffers' lives and careers, then moves on to the next rung and often another company in their career ambition. The collateral damage is cruel to people who simply wanted to keep doing a good job where they liked to live and raise their families.

 

Man loses pants, life

 

In a related story, reports continue to confirm that the Pope wears a tall hat.