USA Today Sports Blasted by Layoffs

They interviewed me for a specific sport assignment editor position, which they pitched as my baby, my ideas, my vision. Perhaps, but there sure were a lot of nannies. I would have reported to another assignment editor, who had somebody above him, who then reported to another level before Monty.
Ridiculous. None of the three 250K-above metros I've been with operated like that.

 

The assigning editors certainly have lots of work to do, and most at USAT are quite good. But the merger of the dot-com and print staffs was awkward and a lot of people could have been shifted to beats that needed more attention rather than having four or five people overseeing coverage of the same beat. (Not all of them have the title of assigning editor, of course.)

 

That was my experience, too, during two days of interviews.
I realized that by the time the multiple layers of people I met got their hands on my copy, there would be none of me left in it. Might as well hire a computer.
I pretty quickly figured out it wasn't the right fit, and told them the truth instead of something that would have gotten me the job, which fortunately I didn't need because I already had a good one ;-)

 

I interviewed there about a decade ago. The person they hired was much more experienced and better than I was. I spoke to a couple people there who said, "You're too young to work here. This is for older writers. You'll get bored."

I know that isn't always the case, but I know of several writers who work there or have worked there who said that unless you're one of a very select few, there isn't a whole lot to do.

 

They also tend to overload the folks who have or have had Web responsibilities.

 

Much of what we see happening here is a re-setting of the wage scale. Where possible all newspapers are trying to get rid of the long-time vets who have clawed their way into six-figure territory or close to it. Eventually they'll be replaced by kids and others willing to work for $45K -- even at USA Today outside D.C.

High wages are becoming a thing of the past in the newspaper business.

 

Starting salaries at USA Today were sround $80K a year when I interviewed there in 2000. I'm guessing there are a lot of people there making six figures.

Meanwhile every other paper in the country is trying to purge its staffs of anyone making over $50K.

 

It's already lower for many "dotcom" people -- even if you're a "dotcom" person who contributes to the print side. Entry-level jobs on the "dotcom" side are certainly lower than $45K. And no matter how multiplatform you get, you can forget about getting bumped up to the print pay scale -- even if you're older and more experienced than some print colleagues.

 

Starting salaries for those coming from somewhere else, perhaps. But anyone who goes there as a first or second job for low money stays that way. I was making less than $45K after 9 years there in various positions, despite getting the maximum allowable raise nearly every year.

That payscale is also kept as quiet as possible. Your boss and your boss's boss have no idea how much you make even though they are responsible for evaluating your contributions.

 

I wish people were brave enough to break the code of silence regarding pay. It isn't a state secret, and knowledge is power when you have negotiating leverage. That leverage is in short supply right now, but you aren't really doing yourself a favor by colluding with management and keeping your salary a secret.

 

Not just newspapers.

 

Guess the view on veteran people who might have made more $$$ in past but now would be willing to work for less $ is:

-- They say they'll work for less $, but they'll eventually get cranky about it.
-- They'll leave as soon as they can find a job offering $1 more.
-- To hell with veterans, they don't "get" social media, other digital thingamagigs.
-- Folks in middle age or older don't live/breathe/die for their jobs.
-- The old, sickly bastards skew the health insurance rates.

Has to be one or both of these, right? Otherwise, with all the experience and wisdom pounding the bricks in the form of unemployed longtime newspaper folks, why wouldn't other papers or Web outlets be snatching up the established folks for cheap prices?

If people really believe the "calling" b.s. so many espouse, many would do it for $45K same as $75K, wouldn't they?