Sun-Times: Happy New Year! You're fired!

But we've got to assume there is some provision for severance, right?

Did we get an answer on whether there was a round of buyouts attempted, even if no one or not enough folks took them? Or did the paper go right to layoffs, no buyouts offered?

Seniority is a lousy way to do layoffs, except for every other way. Once you stray from that, you allow managers to selectively dump a) those making higher wages, regardless of performance; b) those who might access medical benefits more often; c) those who weren't "their" hires and thus won't make those managers look like astute judges of talent, and d) those who weren't "their" hires and thus are less likely to smooch up to the current managers. Even a layoff system dedicated entirely to shedding poor performers isn't likely to succeed in such a subjective business.

Besides, if there are a bunch of poor performers in place, managers weren't doing their jobs properly well before the layoffs came a-callin'.

 

Fixed.

 

Having been a union-covered employee during a layoff and a manager of union-covered employees during another layoff, I was thankful, in both instances, that the contract at my place called for seniority to be just one factor in determining who was laid off.

As an employee, I didn't have to try to figure out when I came in the door relative to everyone else and hope that the blade missed me. While the situation was still nerve-wracking, I could at least hope that merit would trump time spent in the building.

As a manager, it allowed me to look at things more fluidly and assess what jobs would remain and who would be best-positioned to fill them. It actually kept my best people, regardless the other factors Mr. Williams cites, out of harm's way to the greatest possible degree. And for what it's worth, I never heard from senior management that I had to cut this much payroll or get rid of this person because of his/her salary. It was a strictly matter of headcount.

Layoffs suck, they're horrible, they're gut-wrenching, but on either side of the line, give me a system where seniority isn't the sole determinant of who stays and who goes.

 

Even though I was a victim, I think the Herald's 2005 situation, where the Guild bargained away seniority in return for what was really quite a decent buyout/layoff package, was at least a reasonably humane way to deal with many of the problems listed above.
As a business solution, not really. Since 2005, circulation is down 30 percent. The same thing will happen in Chicago, which is too bad, because the Sun-Times was a good tabloid.

 

Our computers refuse to install some IM programs ---- "must have higher clearance to complete this action" --- but allow others. And there are IM programs through the web that do not require installation. But I see no work-related purpose IMing serves.

 

I don't think the newspapers have the allowance, but people who are part of Media General Interactive are required to have AIM on their computers and to be signed in when at work.

 

When I got my job and my computer wouldn't let me download, I just called our IT guys and made them put AIM on my machine. I don't see why companies would have a problem with it really. It's a lot less intrusive than taking personal calls (which I almost never do). Plus everyone has some IM service on handheld devices anyway.

Saw the Sun-Times announce this was coming a few weeks ago, so it's not a shock. Still sucks. Good job, Cookie!

 

I'm not persuaded, especially when you drop words like "more fluidly" -- what does that mean? What it seems to mean is that you can mix subjective factors in with the clearly defined last-in, first-out seniority system. And that lends itself to department heads remaking their staffs in their own image. Sorry, but there already is enough redefining and reassigning that goes on just to suit today's (vs. yesterday's or tomorrow's) new boss. Now people are going to be put on the street, too, just because their hiring dates pre-dated the current boss? Preventing that is the essence of a union.

Any union negotiating away seniority protection -- at least up to the point where an individual member is permitted to waive it for himself or herself only, for a sweetened severance package -- in this age of lousy raises and one-sided contracts isn't worth a month's dues.

I'm not a big union fan, but if they're going to exist - and collect real folding money -- then they need to do what they're supposed to do. Don't allow a sports editor to dump half of his predecessor's hires so he can hang onto his new boys, who are constantly nodding their heads and endorsing checks worth 60 percent of the veterans'. Otherwise, you could get laid off simply for disagreeing with a boss' idea on cover art for the football tab.

The places that layoff regardless of seniority are known as non-union shops.

 

Not to pick on you, BTE, but why are newspapers behind the times when it comes to an online presence? Because of this type of attitude. I know of papers whose people can't even access their own Web site because the automatic multimedia pop-up crashes their newsroom computers. People who can't access their paper's video newscast because of filters against videos online. Can't receive a PDF file on e-mail because their servers reject files over 5 MB. What's the point of having technology if you don't allow your people to use basic online tools to work with?

IM'ing at work is certainly a privilege that can be abused, but so is everything else. Responsible employees can use that technology to work more efficiently, if you let them.

Our online staff, based in three different offices and serving five different papers, communicates almost completely by IM each night. It's a lot less intrusive than our in-house messaging system, which makes you drop what you're doing in order to access it without crashing, or a dozen phone calls, which is just a waste of time.

I communicate by text message with our writers almost every night. Again, a lot less intrusive than a phone call, which you need time -- and some semblance of quiet -- to complete. If we need to have an in-depth conversation about their story, I tell them to find a minute to call me so we can talk.

If I need to fact-check a detail in a story on deadline, I can find it a lot quicker on the Web than I can searching our non-existent archives. And I have enough sense not to trust Wiki or some crackpot site for confirmation. But I can't do that if there are child-filter limits on our Internet access (which, thankfully, our paper doesn't have. )

 

I wasn't for a minute suggesting that newspapers block web access.

I was only talking about IM.

Regarding writers, our e-mail is instant between employees. So I see no reason e-mail and/or phone calls could not suffice.

Most of my urgent dealings with writers are things that need to be handled on the phone anyway. Discussing changes in the lead, etc.