More cuts at DMN

No paper ever has had 40 sports clerks.

I wonder how many papers still have a sports staff of more than 40.

 

I wonder how many papers still have a staff of more than 40.

 

Those 40 sports clerks include the Friday night help who take HS football over the phone. My guess is they were included to help pad the numbers. That list would look very different if it only reflected full-timers.

 

I know one who was laid off. Shame shame shame. Loyal, veteran DMNer. So, they just let him go, don't let the door hit you, you know. Some thanks for all those great years.

 

There's been some discussion on staff sizes here. Want to send along this chilling document that DMN apparently gave to everyone they laid off.

The document lists basically every journalistic employee (no names), their department, and their age. It details who was laid off and who was not. Apparently DMN has had issues in the past with age discrimination suits, and this is their attempt to avoid such a suit. Anyway - thought it would (1) be interesting, and (2) answer some questions about the size of staff.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/64100162/List

This is from the DMN cuts blog.

 

All companies have these type of lists during layoffs.

 

I was surprised to see that many over 60.

The chain that I used to work for didn't let anyone go over 55 for fear of a lawsuit.

 

My logic, if I'm the one paying buyouts, would be, "Don't lay anyone off who might retire in the next two years." The Mark Heisler thing, for instance, just makes no sense at all from Tribune's perspective. Luckily for my career, I don't run a newspaper.

Then again, I guess not every 62-year-old copy editor is planning on retiring soon.

 

That would require thinking beyond two years.

Unfortunately, it's more about "what can we slash to meet revenue goal for the next 2 quarters so I can get my bonus?"

 

Is offering a buyout to someone who might retire in two years really that different from offering a buyout to someone who is eagerly looking to leave the business and probably would be gone within two years anyway?

I'd rather buy out someone who can retire a little sooner than fund someone's inevitable career change or enrollment in graduate school. Not that any of it really is the employers' business, but my hunch is those closer to retirement who get offered buyouts probably have earned more consideration by their tenure at the joint.

Also, my understanding always has been, the older workers can be a greater burden on the health insurance costs.

 

I agree with you. I think it's a very nice sendoff to those near retirement to give them a buyout. As a human, I appreciate it. We have a copy editor who plans on retirement soon, and, if they do layoffs in the near future, everyone (including the copy editor) would like to see him bite the bullet. It'd give him a nice wad of cash to start retirement, and it would spare us from losing another desker.

But financially, how does that ease the burden on the company? To hear Heisler tell it, the Tribune Company shaved maybe two months of salary by laying him off and giving him the buyout. That just seems irresponsible. If you're forcing layoffs, that means you're trying to cut salary. That type of layoff doesn't get that job done.

In the LAT case, since it's a convenient example, it'd be far more cost-efficient to cut one of their less-tenured NBA writers, move Heisler to more of a beat position for his last year, and when he leaves, hire someone cheaper than either Heisler or the previously laid-off reporter (or hire no one) to fill that spot. It's not the nice, humane thing to do. But given how many inhumane layoffs (guy just had twins!) are going around these days, it's surprising they didn't follow that route. It certainly would have saved money, which is the goal, right?