Diane Pucin cut by LA Times

A friend of mine told me a story about a major paper making its cuts several years ago. Apparently, it made the rounds at APSE...

HR called the SE and said "These are the positions being eliminated." and gave the pay code that was attached to those positions. The SE had to look up the code and saw that likely the two people who were considered the best writers on staff were getting the axe.

Considering how quickly both of the writers in question were hired at better jobs, it's safe to say that sentiment was held by many.

He called the ME and said, "Am I seriously supposed to let these two people go?" and was told, "We have no choice."

I don't know if it's this random everywhere, but I get the sense that a lot of the time it is.

 

This thread still is a mixed bag of posts on Pucin being an example of heartless newsroom layoffs and vague stuff about her being fired for cause. Feel like we're wasting our time until we have a better sense of what this was.

 

No, it really did almost "kill" her.

She was supposed to leave Monday, Sept. 10. She was asked to stay over and cover a baseball game Monday night.

So instead of leaving Monday, she left Tuesday --- that was 9/11. She went back and forth over whether to take the morning flight or the afternoon, finally deciding on the afternoon flight. Had she been on the morning flight, she would have died.

 

You are correct. I'm an ass for not reading the whole piece.

Still, have issues with the "sacrifice." She stayed willingly and got paid for working. The happenstance of that day happening to be the one before Sept. 11 doesn't have any value.

 

Absolutely true. Her facts are correct. Her presentation and interpretation of the facts leave much to be desired.

 

In the legal sense, I'm not sure that's true. At least at non-union papers. (I have no idea what the LAT's status is).

You can't be fired for a legally protected reason (being black, old, etc.), but otherwise you can usually be fired for any other reason or no reason at all. It's an at-will, non-contractual relationship.

 

The Times is not a guild paper.

 

You're correct. But no paper that fires somebody "for cause" would not have that cause recorded, and backed up with paperwork, somewhere, for the express purpose of in case the paper were to be sued.

I'd still like to know what the cause was, if there was a real, legitimate one. Because I don't think being "a drama queen" would go over very well as a reason if a case ever did go to court. So, if anybody who is sounding like they might know what went on chimed in with some actual facts, that'd be helpful, as Joe points out.

Otherwise, so far, this reads more like a layoff to me, if she was "given a small stipend and told her services were no longer needed."

We need to know what went on before this can be discussed much more. Her writing in the link is just her emotions talking.

 

Drama queens are not a protected class.

 

You can absolutely be fired for being a pain in the ass, or a "drama queen," but you better be damn sure to document everything.

 

I don't get the sense she was fired for cause. This seems like a typical layoff. She was a media and tennis writer... Not too many of those left. You can lay someone off and be glad to be rid of them. I don't have any idea if that was the case with her, but after reading her "I was almost killed for my paper and 13 short years later they have the nerve to let me go." does not sit well with me.