Do more work for the same pay

Whatever you say.

 

I've heard of staffers negotiating deals on vacation and comp time -- kind of similar to what a credit-card company negotiates with someone who's bankrupt. I also know of people who have cut deals on unused sick days.

Say you have 800 hours of vacation to be used. That's 20 weeks, let's just say. You tell them you'll take, say, eight weeks of vacation and get paid upfront for eight more. That means you'd be available to work 12 weeks when they wouldn't expect you at all. You get 16 weeks of the 20 weeks of vacation, in effect, but you benefit because you get cash for eight of those weeks upfront. Then you can actually go on a vacation during your vacation -- and not just spend your time killing time just to kill it. They get four weeks back, so they're not losing, either.

I know: You're saying, "My place would never go for that." You'd be surprised. This company sounds as if it's trying to rectify something gone wrong in the past -- among many employees, not just one person. It's worth a try. If they don't go for it, you take 20 weeks off and let them worry about how the product suffers.

 

I work at a Gannett paper too and I am hoping to get out too.

 

At a previous spot, there were no real limits on accumulating vacation pay ... until someone left and got paid five-figures in accrued time. The cap started the next pay period.

 

Did someone say Gannett?

From a Gannett HR form:

Steps to complete the form:
Step 1: complete the form.

Shoot me in the face now.

 

it is only in North America where that kind of work schedule is told with pride.
I'm sorry, but to work that many days consecutively - unless you are compensated in the millions - is just fucking stupid.

 

It's tough to put a price on doing a job you love/enjoy/have a passion for.

Which, of course, goes to why the wages are nearly universally so . . .questionable. .. . .

 

I love all the one-upping that's going on in this thread. I worked 4,503 days straight -- that's 24-hour shifts, mind you -- without taking a piss break or eating.

In all seriousness, sports writing should only require 40 hours per week. It's not that important to the overall industry.

 

Before the Internet boom, this is what I had to do on a typical gameday.

Notebook filed at halftime.
Running filed at the buzzer.
Write-through filed about an hour later...

Now, I have to file a notebook before the game, which is immediately posted on the net. I have to blog throughout the game, file a story at halftime, and update the notebook. I have to have a full story done at the buzzer and then update it for print with usually an Internet update later with additional quotes...

Does it suck? Yes, but who cares? That's the nature of this business now. It doesn't do any good to bitch about it...

 

Mizzou, the alternative to not bitching about it to passively allow the tail to keep wagging the dog.

You cannot effect change without rational debate -- and protest -- in the name of common sense.

It's appalling that newspapers -- the voice of the oppressed, the standard-bearer for holding those in power and privilege accountable -- are guilty of blandly looking the other way when the subject is themselves, then wondering why they're losing money and readers...........

 

We quit paying overtime, or at least it's a pain to try and get overtime approved, so I quit going into work 30 minutes early and I quit slaving over my work past 8 hours/shift. We got more work piled on us a few months ago, they don't wanna pay overtime and froze raises, so I refuse to work more than my normal shift time. I realize laws don't require breaks and raises and OT and all that, but desk work doesn't lend itself to even a 20 minute break, so I don't lend myself to my job past my regular shift.