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!

Herald to cut about 175 positions

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by Andy _ Kent, Mar 11, 2009.

  1. Joe Williams

    Joe Williams Well-Known Member

    Why don't these places at least do it in two stages: "offer" (and twist arms) for the buyouts, and then -- when the smoke clears -- lay off how many more they claim to need?

    Why rock people's worlds who might not lose their jobs after all? I don't doubt that people can count from the bottom up in their li'l work groups, based on seniority or whatever, to size up their situations. But giving people packets when they might never need them is one helluva way to demoralize everybody. And frighten spouses and children.
  2. Andy _ Kent

    Andy _ Kent Member

    Joe, that would take a modicum of common sense and decency, which we all know by now none of these fucktards have in their DNA.
  3. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    I wonder if its so the managers can put the hard decision on the shoulders of the older folks they want to take the buyouts and also twist their arms. So when you are laying off Billy with three kids you can blame ol' Sally who just wouldn't leave.

    Doesn't make much sense otherwise.
  4. the bullet

    the bullet New Member

    As someone cut in one of the previous rounds, the way it was explained to me was as follows:

    I was placed in a group with one other person (a truly strange pairing to say the least). I was told I was the odd man out, based on seniority of the newly created group. If anyone else took a buyout, I was safe. If not, the other person in my new work group would replace me.

    About 10 days later, I got a call saying I'll be missed.

    I would imagine it is working the same way this time.

    As someone who worked with the people mentioned here, it is difficult to see Shain go. He was always one of the nicest and most helpful guys on the staff. When you were assigned to help him on his beat, you knew you were not going to be left out in the cold. Sarah was pleasant as well. She worked well with others. As for the other one mentioned, I'll plead the fifth.
  5. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    So, once again, nobody other than Phillips is official yet?
  6. Joe Williams

    Joe Williams Well-Known Member

    I reiterate: Announce how much shrinkage is needed. Solicit buyouts. Set deadline. After the deadline passes, adjust the number by laying off however many are (aargh!) required.

    No need to make some people stand up on a gallows, hands trussed, noose around necks, waiting for others to decide on buyouts.

    You shouldn't have to wait for a reprieve from the fucking governor if your only crime was to be low on a seniority scale. Or to have been good enough to earn a few raises over the years. Or to be handling duty for your fine publication that some editor some years ago decided you were perfect to handle (and now they no longer value).

    Whatever level of mild anxiety it lifts from the masses in a newsroom doesn't outweigh the extreme anxiety it imposes for some period of time on a few individuals. Look, everyone in this business ought to know our time is numbered. But designating a particular few for termination unless, y'know, Charlie or Gilda across the room decides enough is enough and leaves via buyout is cruel, inhuman and about as rotten management as, oh, giving away your product for free and slashing one's way to profitability.
  7. ArnoldBabar

    ArnoldBabar Active Member

    God damn it.
  8. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    This is beyond wrong.

    "Yeah, we're going to have to let you go unless someone takes a buyout..."

    That's fucking bullshit. It's bad enough this shit is happening, but at least know the proper order to do things. Offer the buyouts and then if you don't get enough takers, then let it go to the next level.

    This is a fucking joke.
  9. ArnoldBabar

    ArnoldBabar Active Member

    The whole business of trying to shift responsibility for layoffs onto employees is a fucking outrage.
  10. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    Exactly... "Sorry, X, we wanted to keep you, but you know who wouldn't take a buyout..."

    It's chickenshit.
  11. Andy _ Kent

    Andy _ Kent Member

    ... and sadly, par for the course these days. Again, we all know the type of people we are talking about here, the suits and bean counters masquerading as Tinmen. You know, the ones who refer to the worker bees as "overhead." So to think for one minute that they have a fucking clue how to treat people with an ounce of humanity is simply a pipe dream at best.

    I stayed away from this board for 12 hours, and all it took was 10 minutes reading through the "Bye-bye PI" thread, the KC star thread and now this one to get the lava flowing in my head again.

    Go back and watch the touching video on the P-I site where the publisher reads a "Thank you" quote from a 92-year-old reader who explains why the physical newspaper was so important to her. Then read some of the comments below the farewell story from young readers bemoaning the demise of newspapers, and it makes you realize how blind, deaf and utterly FUCKIN' IGNORANT the decision makers are !!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:
  12. SixToe

    SixToe Well-Known Member

    I was told this morning one Sports staffer is struggling mightily with the offer to take the buyout or stay, knowing it would affect others.

    What a terrible period in our industry.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page