TSN baseball hire

Yes, Howard is a friend.
I have since found out some more information on what the situation was from a few posters. And since I'm not in the loop on why Howard really made the move, I'm going to back out gracefully.
With that in mind, I'd like to think that Howard made the move to better the paper and not for any other reason.

 

You know what I would to see on this board for fairness sake, other sports editors being called out for questionable hires, changing beats, etc.
I have never seen a sports editor with more hateration thrown on him than Garry Howard.

 

So he is the Jay Cutler of sports editors?

 

good analogy

 

Only if his former staff members would defend him aggressively.

 

In all seriousness, why should a candidate who previously worked at the Journal-Sentinel be considered before a better candidate?

I'm not saying that Rick Braun would be a bad hire. I'm not saying that he won't be the most qualified applicant.

What I am saying is, if a better writer/reporter with a better resume applies, why shouldn't the new editor hire him? I don't care what the circumstances are, shouldn't a business hire the most talented, capable and qualified candidate? Why would having Brewers-specific experience be any crucial factor here? (I could see an argument for Major League Baseball experience as a crucial factor, though I don't necessarily agree with that line of thinking.)

I know of a paper that made a decision to rehire someone who had been laid off recently. I have a friend working at this paper in a capacity where he was able to meet with finalists, and he told me that, without question, the other three finalists were more talented and just as experienced.

Layoffs suck. There's no doubt about it. But I don't see why a shop shouldn't look to move forward and improve the paper if it comes into new money or a job opening. If the former writer is the best applicant, that's fantastic. Win-win. If not, it shouldn't be the hiring editor's responsibility to amend the past. We've got too much at stake in the future.

 

I think you are right, as far as SE's go. There have been several publishers and ME's who have been beaten down on threads in the past.

 

I'm guessing you are very young, Versatile. i remember the days when I used to think that workplaces should be run like teams. The "ultimate meritocracies!" Every year, you assess the group you have, scout for possible replacements and cut the bastards who aren't quite as good.

Except that you're cutting people with mortgages. With kids in schools. With no eight-, seven- or even six-figure incomes to cope with the expense and damage of such behavior. They also happen to be people who have worked their way up, perhaps, within the operation. They have relationships inside and outside the building. They have institutional knowledge and valuable background for quick reactions to situations and stories.

There always is someone better and everybody is replaceable. Now, how are you going to go about your business from there?

Why should cutting and bumping begin or end with the line workers? Who's to say there isn't a sharper hiring editor available to take the current person's job? Are an ME or an SE? Heck, CEO? Funny how those who want such aggressive, product-first-and-last approach also want it to begin and end right at the level or job below theirs. Unless they're outsiders and then they are just coveting someone's livelihood.

Don't be disingenuous with that "comes into ... a job opening" verbiage either. It created the job opening by laying off or buying out people for economic reasons. Unless someone was let go for inferior job performance, I think a company should feel an obligation to bring back a downsized person who still needs a job. Even in sheer bottom-line, business-first terms, that sort of company would engender better long-term relationships and some measure of loyalty.

I know. "Loyalty." Hahahahahahahahaha!

Well, this business and a lot of businesses traditionally got many positives from intangibles such as loyalty. A U.S. workplace that wrings that out completely and values it at 0 going forward is losing a ton. It's like the view that journalism is a calling, which makes up for the hours, wages, flat/failing careers and so on. If that calling nonsense gets lost completely and journalism has to compete with any ol' industry for good people, it will suffer way worse than it already has.

 

I am young. And I do understand your points. I really do. But if a person was laid off two years ago, received a severance package for their 10+ years at the company and has moved on with his/her life, why should said person be entitled to a job as soon as one opens up again?

I know my company has laid off a number of really talented people. I also know that my company also laid off most of its worst writers/editors/designers, too.

If a position were to come open at my shop and any of the talented people who were laid off were to apply, I'm positive my bosses would love to have them back. At the same time, if any of the people who were let go largely because their absence wasn't going to be missed were to reapply when a spot came open, I'd hope that they were given a fair shot but ultimately the best hire would be made.

I really do see your point. I think your opinion is probably shared by many veterans on this board, some of whom are probably more qualified for their jobs than just about anyone who would want to take them. And I admit my youth probably contributes to my attitude. I'm only a few years out of college and at a pretty good paper right now with reasonable job security (if such a thing exists).

But here's the thing -- many, many journalists are out of work right now. Many have families to provide for or loans to pay off. Why should a company feel like it needs to hire the one who is out of work because of that company, rather than the one who got screwed by another company?

 

Um, devil you know is better than the one you don't?

 

That's not the American way.

 

Often a reason the company won't go back to a person it laid off is, it wants to hire at a lower salary than that person was making at the end. There's a sense that, even if the person accepted lower pay, the worker would resent that cut and would not be as fully committed to the task, workplace and so on. It's same reason even outside companies don't want to hire people who once made more money elsewhere -- they figure the person will leave as soon as a better deal comes along.

And hell, why not?