New York Times, again

NEW YORK (AP) — The New York Times Co. is cutting pay for most employees by 5 percent for a nine-month period and laying off 100 people.
The company’s flagship newspaper reported on its Web site Thursday that the cuts will hit most nonunion workers and run from April through December. Employees will receive 10 days off in return.
The Times reported that union employees have been asked to take the cut voluntarily to avoid potential layoffs at the company, which has been struggling with an industrywide advertising downturn.
Job cuts will come in the business operations of The New York Times, amounting to 5 percent of the total 2,000 workers in that part of the company.

 

Christ.

 

Interesting that the AP story avoids the de rigeur word: furlough. Not sure if the NYT did the same thing on its site. Makes you wonder if that word is starting to carry some serious baggage that companies aren't going to want to have on them and they'll start coming up with euphemisms.

Also, what mustang said.

 

I just figured it's the NYT's newsroom lefties who hate all things military, including the word "furlough."

 

the company is calling this a paycut because there are strict federal laws involving furloughs.

according to the nyt story:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/business/media/27times.html?ref=business

Other companies that have used furloughs have instructed workers, for instance, that they cannot even make work-related phone calls or check work e-mail messages while on leave.

 

Whereas now, the Times can cut your pay 5 percent but expect you to do some work on those 10 days "off" they gave you in return. Clever.

 

There are many differences between this pay cut + time off and furloughs at places like Gannett.

An unpaid week equals about a 1.92 percent pay cut. So two unpaid weeks in this case would equald a 3.84 percent pay cut. The Times staffers are taking a five percent cut. So this isn't exactly a 10 days off, for 10 days less of pay thing.

Also, the days off are spread out across 9 months as opposed to one single quarter like Gannett. It almost seems like they are giving out 10 days off because they are sorry about kicking the employees in the nuts with a 5 percent pay cut.

 

All good points, 'stang. Not calling it a furlough because it, in fact, is not a furlough would seem to make sense.

 

Sounds like their people wouldn't be tapping into the New York unemployment system either, this way.

 

In some ways, this is almost the most humane way to handle paycuts that I've seen at a paper.

 

Work this.

 

Am I dense? I read the release as 10 additional days vacation (paid) in exchange for the pay cut. Not furlough, not mandatory when it's taken, but actual vacation. It sucks that they are losing pay, but if they are getting vacation in exchange, it's not as horrible as other instances.