Sports editor's OT lawsuit against Gannett

Different deal, obviously.

 

I see what you're saying Stagger Lee. Sounds suspicious to me.

 

If you are a supervisor, you are not working for free if you work more than 40 hours. You are paid a salary. You aren't paid by the hour.

 

But there is still a little timesheet that goes to payroll --- for hourly employees and salaried ones --- in which "8s" are filled in for days worked.

So even a salary is based on a 40-hour week. I'm salary, and my paystub has a notation for "hours worked this week" and "hours worked year to date", and the pay is based on that number (always 40, of course). That is the expectation, and it's documented every week.

Sure, a little extra time is reasonable for a manager. But 50-60 hour weeks, every week? No bleeping way.

 

Not at my place. Salaried folks don't fill out a time sheet unless to indicate they were on vacation or took a day off.

Bottom line, there are certain salaried jobs where you work your 9-5 and go home and others where you know you are going to routinely work 50 or more hours a week. This biz is one of those.

Now, the hourly folks, that's different. You should not be coerced, nudged, or intimidated into putting in for 40 when you worked more.

On the other hand, you need to make good use of your 40 hours.

 

Always a catch.

Is the issue size of paper? Between Mrs. Stain and I, we have a sample size of four newspapers ranging from 5k to 20k in circulation, and we've always been hourly. But it seems here that salaried is the norm.

 

I'm salaried, but the previous sports writer was hourly. Problem with the notion that employers can work you do death if you're salaried is what happens if you work a string of 20-30 hour weeks? The managers say you're ripping off the company.

 

We don't fill out a timesheet, either.

It just gets filled out. Something has to go to payroll with your name on it, whether you see it or not.

 

My company will not give comp time. It's stated explicitly in the policy book.

 

We have all been here, haven't we? This is not bitter advice, rather realistic advice. It's not your paper, it's not your section, and the pride you feel in the section is no really yours.

What the paper is doing is taking advantage of your pride and willingness to do excellent work and using that against you. What you have to consider is that this is a job, and we are professionals, and we should be treated a such.

It's not your paper or section, it's the newspapers. If you do a great job and circulation and advertising go through the roof, do you make the money? Who gets the money when it's successful is who you should look at for your cue.

If it is not important to the owner, then it should not be important to you.

 

I don't know the laws in every state, but to be a manager and an exempt staff (exempt from receiving overtime) you have to manage someone. You can't be called a manager, and have not manage anyone. I imagine Gannett is cheating the system. If you want to burn bridges, go ask for the time you are supposed to work.

And on the people who regular work 50-60 hours, they are white-collar professionals who are compensated for their work. Journalists are blue collar workers. We are craftsmen. That's the best way to look at the dynamic.

 

Good points all, but... what's important to me is up to one person -- me. The rest of the world can have an opinion, and is most likely correct, but as long as I still have the option to do what I do, I will (for now, anyway). If/when I decide it's not as important, than I shall cross that bridge. And I may very well get there and possibly soon. I'm just not there, yet. As I mentioned, I'm asking no one to agree, or even to understand. It's just how I was brought up in this business. Perhaps I'm just desperately attempting to hold on to a piece of what was... maybe fearing what is about to be. Thanks for allowing me to babble.