Detroit newspaper employees agree to wage cuts

The new contract calls for pay cuts of 4.5 percent or 6.5 percent, depending on how much you make, plus higher health care costs.

You can't tell me that the Freep and News aren't making money.

http://www.freep.com/article/20101114/BUSINESS06/101114010/1320/Unions-agree-to-wage-cuts-at-newspapers

 

The guild (or union) agreed to this??

 

Not enough probably to cover the interest payments on the huge debt load that Gannett has taken on as a whole.

"Your net profit went down from 15% to 13%? Eff you, pay me!"-

 

The union should have insisted that no bonuses be paid to the top 10 wage earners in Gannett before agreeing to a pay cut. (Yeah, right).

Awful for the workers, and very sad.

 

Hate to say it, but if it prevents job cuts, it was a smart move by the union.

 

You're looking at the glass half full. I'm looking at it half empty.

The people who would get cut would be the last person hired... the $32,000 per year newbie. Now that person will be making 4.5 percent less with higher health costs. Congrats.

 

Yes, since what the state of Michigan needs now is more unemployed workers. I'm sure it's easy for 23-year-olds to find jobs in the Detroit area.

 

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. In Detroit its more of the older generation, former autoworkers, or skilled trade workers in their 50s and 60s who were laid off and kind find new jobs, or got forced into early retirement. I'd say from my point of view, a 25-year-old in Detroit, that's what it looks like. Most of my friends have work, but none of my uncles do.

 

It's easy to be prinicipled when it's not your ass.

 

Any wage cut stinks, but compared to what they were originally asking (wasn't it 12 percent?) this is better.

 

Let's say one of the top earners was able to negotiate a couple of printing contracts (say, with the NYT or USAT) that netted the company $2 million per year.

This guy doesn't deserve his $500,000 bonus (which, in effect, is his salary)?

Not always as cut-and-dried as we'd like to believe sometimes.

 

The principle behind this is definitely bad.

It's all a matter of perspective, though. As someone who, outside of inconsistent freelance work, has been out of work for quite some time after losing a less-than-$40,000-a-year job, and as someone about to begin a $9-an-hour part-time job in mid-life to supplement myself, I can see how people would put up with this.

In short, I would be thrilled to make $30,000 a year in a job I didn't have to go find/get right now.

If individual people aren't happy with the situation, after all, they really can always leave if they choose. They might realize, however, that there is absolutely no guarantee that they would necessarily get anything better.

Things really are that bad, for many people, these days.