Applying for the recently posted USA Today jobs

[Piotr Rasputin]

Seems there's some activity there:

http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/posts/3350571/

So, does the view that everyone applying for these is stepping over corpses, matter? Or is that a quaint notion from back when layoffs were less common?

Does it matter how one secures a solid job these days? Should the new applicants spend a lot of time worrying about the recent bloodletting at USA Today?

I don't do the newspaper thing anymore, but I probably would have applied for these jobs just for fun back when I was still in the newspaper world.

Not even sure I would have felt bad about it. Probably would have given lip service here, of course. But in the end, should it matter how one finds a way to advance their own career and feed their family?

 

[Scoop returns]

My question to you is are suggesting that people should bypass or boycott these USA Today openings because of all the people that have been let go? I say get your head out of your ass and get a whiff of what is really going on out here my friend. If anyone is smart they have dusted off their resumes and cover letters and got them in quickly. It's hard out of here for all of us journalists these days so you take your opportunities when or whenever they come. I feel for those people who were let go but these jobs are going to be filled by someone so why not you or me. My only concern these days is I'm just not willing to relocate anymore for this uncertain newspaper businesss.

 

[Mystery Meat II]

The question assumes that everyone who applies for these openings knows what happened to create them. The SJ regulars would, of course, and others would, but not everyone. Irrelevant example: When I got my last job, I didn't know until my first day that they had forced three people in the department to reapply for their jobs, and that I was replacing one of them. At that point I was unemployed for 18 months, so whatever empathy I had for the person whose job I now had was more than overcome by the sheer relief of having a job.

I mean, I guess it'd be nice in the abstract to rise up with fists and refuse to even entertain the notion of applying for a job that opened up because of layoffs or forced resignation or compulsory reapplication. But it's hard to limit yourself in an already contracting job pool, especially if you're out of a job.

 

[BTExpress]

Good point, but one that has been going on for a couple of years.

Anyone working at a Gannett design or editing hub, or who is doing Tribune modules and Hartford and Newport News pages in Chicago, or who is working at a centralized desk anywhere can be said to be stepping on corpses.

I left a job at a place where design/editing was soon to be outsourced and went to a hub that is producing three newspapers from one location.

Did I step on a corpse? Dunno. But I do know that had my old place offered me a 12-year, no-layoff contract that would have gotten me to age 62, I never would have left.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

My question to you is are suggesting that people should bypass or boycott these USA Today openings because of all the people that have been let go?

My words were clear.

I made no such suggestion.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

If you're desperate for a job, then apply. If your financial circumstances are such that you can stand on your principles, then don't.

But if they do hire you, rent, don't buy.

 

[Mark2010]

It's like coaches applying for a vacancy when another coach gets fired. I can guarantee you that near the end of every season, there are plenty of coaches watching the landscape, waiting to see what openings come available. And when a plum job comes open, they pounce. Has nothing to do with feelings for the poor sap who just got canned.

 

[Moderator1]

This could apply - no pun intended - to my situation as well. I became sports editor at a paper that had eliminated its sports department 14 months before. More than half of the previous staff I could count as friends. I knew most of the others. I was devastated for them when the paper made that decision.

But it was not my decision. I didn't cause them to lose their jobs. And if I decided to take some kind of stand and not apply for this one, someone else would have become SE and it still wouldn't have changed what happened.

In this market, I can't imagine anyone would hold it against anyone else for applying for one of these jobs.

I got a lot of notes when I got this job. Almost all of the previous staff sent me one and there wasn't anything close to a "screw you" in there.

 

[mediaguy]

If you didn't go for jobs at papers where people have lost their jobs, kind of limits your options, no?

 

[VJ]

This could apply - no pun intended - to my situation as well. I became sports editor at a paper that had eliminated its sports department 14 months before. More than half of the previous staff I could count as friends. I knew most of the others. I was devastated for them when the paper made that decision.

But it was not my decision. I didn't cause them to lose their jobs. And if I decided to take some kind of stand and not apply for this one, someone else would have become SE and it still wouldn't have changed what happened.

In this market, I can't imagine anyone would hold it against anyone else for applying for one of these jobs.

I got a lot of notes when I got this job. Almost all of the previous staff sent me one and there wasn't anything close to a "screw you" in there.

What he said.

Every company at some point in its history has laid off employees. If you're limiting your job search to companies who have never laid off a single employee, good luck.

 

[BillyT]

My hesitation in many of this situations is that I don't want to put myself in a situation where I could get let go for little reason (other than salary) in a year or so.

There are a number of decent Lee jobs out there, but after the way they laid waist to the staff at the local paper, I have to wonder if there's any benefit at all or any long-term hope.

If they are hiring, they should have kept the people who were working for them. Of course, there's littl eloyalty left.

 

[geddymurphy]

If you're desperate for a job, then apply. If your financial circumstances are such that you can stand on your principles, then don't.

But if they do hire you, rent, don't buy.

Or at the very least, don't uproot your family. We have no idea how long Gannett will give Beusse and Morgan before they get cold feet about this whole thing. They seem to be expecting a miracle.

 

[VJ]

If they are hiring, they should have kept the people who were working for them. Of course, there's littl eloyalty left.

If they were hiring the same positions as those they laid off, I could see your point, but it appears they are looking for an entirely different set of skills. I'm sympathetic to those laid off, as someone who once was himself, but contrary to Mitt Romney's opinion, corporations aren't people. They aren't beholden to the same ethical standards you or I are. Besides, if they were, there'd be nothing to ***** about, and what fun would that be?

 

[Stitch]

Gannett is looking for those who will work more for less. It isn't more complicated than that.

 

[BTExpress]

If they are hiring, they should have kept the people who were working for them. Of course, there's littl eloyalty left.

The point is to save money.

If you lay off someone making $74K in City A, then hire someone making $35K to produce City A's paper in City B's centralized editing hub, you save money.

Of course, you could offer someone the chance to move 1,000 miles and take a $39K pay cut, but . . .

 

[Baron Scicluna]

If they are hiring, they should have kept the people who were working for them. Of course, there's littl eloyalty left.

If they were hiring the same positions as those they laid off, I could see your point, but it appears they are looking for an entirely different set of skills. I'm sympathetic to those laid off, as someone who once was himself, but contrary to Mitt Romney's opinion, corporations aren't people. They aren't beholden to the same ethical standards you or I are. Besides, if they were, there'd be nothing to ***** about, and what fun would that be?

The whole skill set thing is a red herring, because the skills they are seeking are skills that most people can learn.

It's just about the money, but Gannett doesn't want to say that because then they look even worse than they already do. Especially when they give the savings from the furloughs to the executives for their bonuses. So they try some BS "Your skills are obsolete" crap.

 

[BillyT]

If they are hiring, they should have kept the people who were working for them. Of course, there's littl eloyalty left.

The point is to save money.

If you lay off someone making $74K in City A, then hire someone making $35K to produce City A's paper in City B's centralized editing hub, you save money.

Of course, you could offer someone the chance to move 1,000 miles and take a $39K pay cut, but . . .

In this economy, there are people who would take that.

They should have at least offered that.

 

[Southern Yankee]

Did anybody happen to notice if the window ended to apply for those jobs? They were posted on May 24 and, as best as I can tell, they're not up on the Gannett site any more -- unless it's a glitch or I'm doing something wrong on the Web site.

 

[Stitch]

If they are hiring, they should have kept the people who were working for them. Of course, there's littl eloyalty left.

The point is to save money.

If you lay off someone making $74K in City A, then hire someone making $35K to produce City A's paper in City B's centralized editing hub, you save money.

Of course, you could offer someone the chance to move 1,000 miles and take a $39K pay cut, but . . .

In this economy, there are people who would take that.

They should have at least offered that.

Companies don't want to deal with employees relocating and taking a big pay cut. Morale would be horrible, bot that I would blame a Gannett employee for not supporting the company line.

 

[BTExpress]

In this economy, there are people who would take that.

They should have at least offered that.

Some companies do. And do even better than that.

When McClatchy organized its publishing center in Charlotte, employees in Raleigh and Rock Hill were offered the chance to relocate at the same pay. Twenty-four said no.