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!

Detroit newspaper employees agree to wage cuts

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by WolvEagle, Nov 14, 2010.

  1. WolvEagle

    WolvEagle Active Member

  2. Mark2010

    Mark2010 Active Member

    The guild (or union) agreed to this??
     
  3. britwrit

    britwrit Well-Known Member

  4. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  5. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    Hate to say it, but if it prevents job cuts, it was a smart move by the union.
     
  6. mustangj17

    mustangj17 Active Member

    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.
     
  7. wicked

    wicked Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  8. mustangj17

    mustangj17 Active Member

    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.
     
  9. crusoes

    crusoes Active Member

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

    steveu Well-Known Member

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

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  12. WriteThinking

    WriteThinking Well-Known Member

    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.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page