Guarantees?

I realize this may cause some beverages to be snorted through nostrils - but if you are interviewing for a job should you demand at least a one-year guarantee if you are moving from a different state? I've read some pretty crappy stories on this board, and while some companies may blow you off or move on to the next candidate - why would anyone who has a gig move to a different gig without a guaranteed no layoff clause these days?

 

Guarantees?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Good luck with that, pal.

 

The serious answer to your question is that you're right. No one should take a new job, especially if you're relocating, without some assurance the job will be there awhile. The problem is, no company will make that guarantee, so you'd better be sure of what you're getting into.

 

In today's economic climate, there are no guarantees for anyone in any industry. A year is a long time and, given a year, things could either improve to continue to grow worse.

Be hopeful you can get any job.

 

Lacking any guarantee the job will be there in six months, in a year, is it wrong to think moving expenses should be paid? Otherwise, you're paying up front to take a big risk? Is it only fair under these circumstances for the hiring paper to pay for the move?

 

Do they even have job interviews in this industry anymore? To have interviews, you'd have to a paper interested in hiring someone.

Let's say you don't get that guarantee, what are you going to do then? Heck, I'd be happy if a paper I interviewed with validated my parking.

 

WFW.

Just visited some close friends of mine who moved four hours away into another state after she was offered a really nice gig. Six months later, they determined they didn't need the position ... and they're not exactly offering to help move the family back.

It's a nice idea in theory, but reality is that no one is going to offer any guarantees.

 

I've noticed several newspapers that have unionized newsrooms have been pressing for some exemptions to strict seniority rules regarding layoffs, and have been getting that concession. So if the paper you're going to allows a few newbies to be shielded, you should get the hiring editor to put in writing that you will be counted as one of the exemptions should a round (or two) of layoffs be required.

If the paper you're going to doesn't allow for that and will definitely chop by the last-in, first-gone standard, you shouldn't take a job there in this climate. Period. Make it clear to the bosses there what your reasoning is, too, in case they want to negotiate some flexibility with the union to come back at you or at the next person.

If I were the one with the newspaper job offer from another city/state, I would ask for two-way moving expenses. That is, they pay for me to get there and then they pay for me to move away when the job disappears. Or maybe I'd just ask that they cut a check for double my move-to expenses as soon as I show up, so I know I'm covered for the inevitable back end.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha! That'll happen.

 

BTW, regarding my above post: If you are hired with the promise of an exemption, understand that you will in essence be causing someone who has worked there for a while, someone who is friends with your various colleagues, to be laid off when the time comes.

That might affect your popularity in the room from Day 1, a lousy way to start a new job.

Turning workers against workers: Just another attribute of modern newsroom leadership.

 

Agreed. Who can assure a lengthy stay in these times? You'll have to go by on feel and gut instinct on whether you think you'll be secure.

 

What "leadership"?

 

And some of them will ask that you give them a guarantee that you'll stay at least a year, even though they won't guarantee your job will make it through that time period.