Kansas City Star's bizarre approach to a staff reduction

And leave the other reporter not only with her survivor's guilt, but a fat target on her back for anyone who was friends with the one who lost her job. Good luck spending those Schrute bucks in hell gentlemen.

 

What's sad is I'm so used to this stuff happening -- to former co-workers, to former classmates, to current co-workers, that this doesn't even strike me as inhumane or awful. It just seems like a media company acting like a 21st century media company.

I have a friend with a government job. He complained once about having to come in for a few hours on a Saturday. I went into a calm, delivered five-minute speech about what it's like to work for a newspaper, and he agreed to never complain again.

I treat this friend like gold. I hope to God one day he can get ME a cushy government job so I can put these scary days behind me.

 

We approve

 

This happened at my own shop a few years ago. An older employee who had been there several decades was asked to sacrifice their job for the sake of two rookie reporters. Basically, this one person's salary equalled the other two salaries combined. This person was distraught with being put in this situation, and despite this person being well beyond the age to retire, they decided to keep their job. The two rookies were sent packing. I suppose management feared an age discrimination situation if they cut the older employee so they left it up to them.

I've never felt good about any of it ever since. I figure my time will come sooner before later. Such is life in our world. Sucks.

 

Funny how the corporate world wants to drive out unions again, but they also want you to take one for the team and step down when you're paid well but unprotected.

An't that funny?

 

The other pathetic thing about this is that, in this day and age, did the Star execs actually think nobody would find out about this?

 

He's not saying he condones it, just predicting it. It is far from stupid to say you can see something like this coming. Look, employees may be numbers in a ledger to corporate, but when they make these decisions for the betterment of the bottom line, they can ruin lives in the process. A little perspective would probably avoid this situation, but people generally don't have perspective anymore. Most likely, people will land on their feet after something like this, some in a much better situation. But when you just got the overdue bill in the mail, the medical report, the third fight with your spouse in as many days . . . well, eventually, there is going to be a tipping point. And you are likely not going to be in a position to be rational. Especially, if they handle it in a way such as this.

 

Exactly.

There's no really good way to handle a layoff. But, as we've seen on here, there's plenty of bad ways. And just when we think we've seen it all, something like this comes along.

Like I said above, did they honestly think nobody would find out about it, and do they honestly think the rest of the staff is going to respect them now because of it? And even worse, do they even care?

Makes you wonder what it really takes to become an executive. I used to think it took some really special talent or brains to be one. As we've seen with the debate over the $100K Michigan social media director, even if it does take talent, brains, or both, it sure doesn't seem like common sense is very abundant in these situations.

 

Unless we're thinking of the same place, my old shop did the same thing.

 

Hahaha, no doubt! I used to work for a SE that put in at least 60 hours a week, rarely took a day off, and used about a quarter of his vacation. I've been waiting for a huge Sunday piece about a local biz overworking its employees without due compensation.

When I was in college, I helped piece together a story about fraternity/sports teams freshmen hazing. It naturally caused quite a ruckus. Everyone was pounded on the back in the newsroom for a job well done. But of course, at the end of the semester, there was the big newsroom fiesta, complete with ample booze and ushering in new editors with longtime rituals. Yeah, I participated and had fun, but I'm not sure anyone else saw the irony.

 

Why not have the readers vote by Twitter?

 

I'm sure that happens from time to time --- how can it not, with the numbers involved? --- but frankly it should have zero bearing on the decision making.

I doubt the health status of every employee (or any employee) is known by anybody making these decisions, nor should it be. And everyone's finances have hundreds of variables anyway. A woman undergoing cancer treatment may be under her husband's insurance . . . or maybe not. A healthy worker may have other financial burdens equal to the sick woman's. And so on.