Sports editor's OT lawsuit against Gannett

Yep. You are not alone.

 

Not willingly.

Grudgingly at best; in fear for their jobs, much more likely.

 

At my last job, I had a co-worker who kept begging the two of us in sports to quit after 40 hours were done. Of the four reporters on the news side (including the editor). only one worked more than 40. In sports, both of us were routinely 60 or so a week.
Here's the thing: John Doe looking at the paper in the rack had no idea we were busting our butts in sports, covering the hell out of five schools just about every night. Why? The front page highlighted the lack of effort put in by 75% of the news side. In other words, press releases (or barely rewritten PR with bylines attached) ruled the day. John Doe would see the lack of effort on the front and assume there was nothing worth reading inside.
I think that's what pissed me off as much or more than my editor being a lazy SOB: his lack of effort made the paper as a whole look like crap. Only if people were really into prep sports would they have a reason to buy our paper. Hell, I didn't tell anyone to subscribe because I knew it was crap aside from those sports pages. No effort, no proofreading (since the editor typically finished layout about five minutes before deadline), etc.
Having pride in my work was the only thing driving me. That gets the best of me too much, something many on here can say. I have an inability to force myself to accept "good enough." Even with something simple like doing the dishes I'm a perfectionist.
We're almost two years into the life of our paper and each week I keep pushing hard in case this is THE week when people suddenly start noticing the paper and come stampeding into our office to take out subscriptions. I have this overwhelming fear that if I settle for good enough and thus put out a substandard product (by my standards), that's the week people really start noticing the paper and say "What kind of crap is this? What a rag."

 

See, to me, if it takes two people 60 hours a week to do the job, then the onus is on the company to hire a third person to reduce the workload, if, for no other reason, to make sure the other two workers don't burn out so quick. And if the company doesn't care about the product that much, then why should the workers?

If both 60-hour workers were collecting OT pay, then their combined overtime would be the equivilant of the pay of a third person to work 40, although there would be the added benefit costs. But if a company can afford to give its top brass bonuses and super-high salaries, they ought to be able to pay the extra benefit package for the third person.

Now, if the two 60-hour workers are working for free, then there's no reason for the company to hire a third person. And while fear of losing the paycheck is a strong reason, the 60-hour worker is only hurting himself.

As I've said in earlier posts on this topic, assume the worker is making $10/hour. If they work 20 extra hours a week, that's $300 extra per week, $15K extra a year (assuming two weeks vacation where there's no overtime). Work for 10 years, and you're voluntarily losing $150,000 out of your pocket. If you do it for 30 years, that's $450,000. That's a healthy amount of money you can use for your retirement.

And all for a company that doesn't give a shit about you.

 

This is why I rail about management so much. You are a great worker, the kind I feel gets overlooked by management all the time. Frankly, at the papers I've worked I've never seen a reporter on newsside with the drive of sports writers like yourself. Somehow they are expected to work 40 and no more. I've seen news reporters go home at 5 p.m., with their breaking news story simply incomplete. They wait for he/she to return the next day to work on it, not caring at all about the breaking news aspect of it. In sports, a breaking news story gets written no matter how many hours the reporter must work and NO OVERTIME.
I've seen too many management types crap on people like yourself so it's made me somewhat bitter when discussing the the meeting people.

 

You know damn well it's not that black and white. Could I do my weekly Monday notebook after Saturday games? Yes. But even at home games, I'm not leaving the stadium or arena until at least 11:30 p.m., often closer to midnight. By then, I'm pooped. The only three things that sound good to me are sleep, sex and beer. If I'm lucky, all three. So Sunday comes, and I know I have to send my notebook in at some point. I tell the desk they'll get it when they get, but they'll get it in plenty of time. It takes 30-45 minutes. Not a big deal.

Columns on my days off? Again, whatever. I usually have a few hours of down time any way. Again, no big deal. And the long nights on the road, I understand it.

I've gotten to the point where if OT/Comp isn't offered, I cut down my work hours. Not to the point where the extra time is made up, but I feel better getting home earlier. Others at other shops aren't so lucky. Bitch, and they're told to suck it up or look for another job. I guarantee my ME would tell me that. And given my salary, position and the fact my ME pretty much wouldn't care if I dropped dead tomorrow, I have to watch myself. I don't want to give them any reason to put me first on the chopping block the next time if/when it happens because I'm sure they already have enough.

 

The thing is, even if you get OT and you can bet with a union paper we do, there is little incentive for companies to hire. We have people dragging down almost 20 OT hours a week and they still don't hire. I guess the cost of the benefits is still more than them paying hundreds of hours of OT per week.