cutting full-time hours

I've always wondered whose bright idea was it to work off the clock so the company doesn't have to pay overtime.

 

One of the last things that makes this job seem like better than what most people do for a living -- I work from home, never have to be in an office and thus things like hours and lunch breaks are fairly meaningless.

If that were to change and we started having to punch a time clock, I'd be selling cars.

 

That's the question of the decade. Why are sports reporters EXPECTED to work 60 to 70 hours a week and get paid for 40 and news reporters go home at 5 p.m. even if a story is not finished. Ridiculous.
Sports writers and editors have contributed to the demise of newspapers by making their employees "eat hours." Sports reporters have eaten hours for years making the gannett types believe citizen journalists can do as good a job as sports reporters.
There is no reason in hell sports writers should be treated differently from lazy news reporters who get paid overtime for working a half hour more than 40. Disgraceful and it is the fault of SPORTS EDITORS afraid of those running the 10 a.m. news meetings.

 

I would think it would be because if a sportswriter wasn't willing to put in the 60-70, there would be somebody else (probably a lot cheaper), who would be willing to. That whole supply vs. demand thing.

 

There's a chicken-and-the-egg element to this. A lot of us started putting in more unpaid time in order to preserve some of the more likable aspects of the gig, such as covering distant games in person.

Sure it made for 10- or 12-hour days between the travel and the work (mainbar/sidebar/column/notebook/blog/radio actuality . . . pick any four) but we started giving the company free hours because of the threat (implied or otherwise) that management would otherwise do away with the travel budget and assign us extra desk shifts instead.

And we all love desk shifts because you just can't get enough of the local JC tennis coach calling in results from a 10 a.m. match at 9:30 p.m. on Saturdays.

 

The union contracts with which I'm familiar had specific clauses allowing management to "set schedules" for sports reporters distinct and apart from the mandated work weeks for other reporters. In other words, the OT rules didn't necessarily apply. Bosses claimed it allowed for such wonderful perks as comp time -- which can be wonderful when one is able to take it in full, but nowadays gets stepped on by sports seasons that run nearly year-round.

Still, I loved the fact that when push came to shove over hours required, the union would take its dues from sports reporters just the same, but give a "contract allows it" shrug over disputes.

Wouldn't be as annoying if the whole newsroom was run that way. But it always seems like the low-to-medium producers are the first ones to file for OT, while the eager beavers just do the extra work for no extra pay.

 

ah yes, the 10 a.m. meeting boogie man strikes again

 

Yes but that should be management's problem. I've known sports writers who have complained that colleagues from the news side were sent to big events like the Super Bowl or World Series or Olympics to write banal news stories on the event, and wrote down every hour of travel and work, whereas the sports reporter was paid for a 40 hour week. Giving away free hours was a bad idea, period. The newspaper benefited and many of those working 70 and paid for 40 have been laid off now without a second thought. It's almost as if anybody who demanded to be paid for hours work was looked down upon by the sports editor. It's shameful.

 

Plus, a lot of joints bitch and lay down pissy rules about eating at your desk.

Whenever the suits start blowing whistles about that crap, my response is, "Fine. I'll take an hour -- 60 minutes -- off for lunch."

 

My place was 37.5 from the time I got there 11 years ago till they switche me to 0 hours a few months ago.

As for the issue of working unpaid ot, I just figured I'd get it back in the offseason when a lot of my "work days" consisted of making a few phone calls or writing one 10-inch story from home in my underwear.

 

And nowadays the suits will put you on the list of the next person to get laid off. This business is run by idiots. Fucking idiots.

 

So when they are trimming hours, do they also cut benefits, such as health insurance, under the guise that the employee is less than full-time? That would be my main concern. Because, frankly, the 2.5 extra hours per week ain't gonna mean much at this hourly rate.