Bissinger Drops The Pimp Hand

[Fenian_Bastard]

http://www.phawker.com/?p=1262

Discuss.

 

[zeke12]

This was on another thread, but I can't resist it again.

While it's easy to sympathize with Bissinger's point of view, to do so is ethically cloudy and strange to say the least.

Management is cutting jobs. Why shift to blame to labor, even if to the highest paid laborers?

SAS is not obligated, by union contract or any code of ethics I can think of, to turn over his job for someone else. In fact, if he did quit, who is to say management wouldn't just absorb his salary into the profit margin?

Strange, strange outlook.

 

[FishHack76]

I agree that Steven A. should probably leave ... I mean leave altogether

 

[broadway joe]

This was on another thread, but I can't resist it again.

While it's easy to sympathize with Bissinger's point of view, to do so is ethically cloudy and strange to say the least.

Management is cutting jobs. Why shift to blame to labor, even if to the highest paid laborers?

SAS is not obligated, by union contract or any code of ethics I can think of, to turn over his job for someone else. In fact, if he did quit, who is to say management wouldn't just absorb his salary into the profit margin?

Strange, strange outlook.

Exactly right. Incredibly naive position that Bissinger is taking, as though if not for the high salaries of Stephen A and the other guy, the Inquirer wouldn't be laying off the 68 employees. What a crock, not to mention how irresponsible it is to paint these two guys as the villains here.

 

[zeke12]

It also assumes that management HAD to cut jobs.

Which, in this business, where papers with 20 percent profit margins get hacked to bits, just isn't true.

 

[Alma]

Bissenger is spot on. Neither need the job, neither has the job as their priority, and by taking two of the layoffs - they'd never be two of the people asked to walk - they're saving someone else's job. Maybe a few more than two. I think that's the basic argument here.

Again, I've said many times: If I were a publisher, I'd let my cream folks know that I'm happy they've landed their TV gigs and wish them well. But they're gone. See, that deepens the choice a little bit. Newspapers let their best have a little too much of both worlds. Imagine if the Washington Post suddenly said "see ya Dana" or New York Times did the same to Thomas Friedman. It'd be interesting to see how long they'd last without the title behind their name.

When the mediums stop bleeding into one another, in fact, everybody does better work.

 

[Ace]

I'm with Alma.

 

[zeke12]

Alma --

As I've already pointed out, though, that assumes that every publisher is benovolent and makes job cuts only as a last resort.

And we know that not to be the case. I'm not fan of SAS, but if he quits and the owners just apply that money to the margin and don't hire another columnist, no one benefits.

 

[broadway joe]

Obviously the Inquirer feels the paper is getting a reasonable return on their investment in the two writers, or they wouldn't have to resign because they'd already have been canned, especially if times are so tight that the paper is laying people off. The Inqurer may feel that that Stephen A's ESPN exposure benefits the paper, for instance. And as Zeke said, why ask two members of the labor force to give up their jobs to save others? Why not ask the publisher or other members of management to take pay cuts? Wouldn't that be just as reasonable, if not more so? The issue of writers serving more than one master is a separate one, I think. The question here is why two employees should be singled out to save the jobs of other employees.

 

[novelist_wannabe]

What Bissinger is saying is, if you win the lottery, you owe it to your fellow man not to occupy a job from which someone less fortunate would draw greater benefit. I have no problem with that.

 

[zeke12]

Well, within the bubble he has constructed where apparently no one acts but for the greatest benefit for for the greatest number, I guess I would agree. Of course, they debunk the thoery of general utility on the first day of ethics class, but that's beside the point.

In the real world, why would you hold labor to a higher standard than management?

 

[broadway joe]

If someone could show that:

1. the Inquirer has no financial choice but to make these layoffs
2. these two guys are the highest salaried people at the paper
3. the money these two guys would be giving up would be directly applied to saving the jobs of those laid off

then Bissinger might have a case. Otherwise, these two writers owe it to no one to give up positions they have earned and for which their employees find them worthy.

 

[Alma]

Zeke12,

Because. How another person acts shouldn't dictate how you do.

If both of those guys publicly walked with the intent that their salary be used to save the jobs of others who might have been fired, maybe the Inquirer would pocket the money and laugh. But, again, I'm not sure you make charitable decisions in life based on what bad people might do. A lot of the tsunami money never got to the intended victims; it doesn't mean it shouldn't have been given.

 

[Alma]

If someone could show that:

1. the Inquirer has no financial choice but to make these layoffs
2. these two guys are the highest salaried people at the paper
3. the money these two guys would be giving up would be directly applied to saving the jobs of those laid off

then Bissinger might have a case. Otherwise, these two writers owe it to no one to give up positions they have earned and for which their employees find them worthy.

My guess is you don't even conduct your own life this way. Have you never been charitable? Did you demand a blueprint outlining the how efficiently your charity would reach its intended destination? Do we give because it's a sure thing? Or do we give out of chariable spirit?

 

[zeke12]

If that's your position, Alma, that's fine, if you're speaking of a charitable act. I'm speaking of ethics. The columnists in question are certainly under no obligation to perform charitable acts, correct? And Bissinger doesn't say in the column that they should leave as an act of charity, either.

But the obvious retort, then, to Bissinger, is to ask why he doesn't offer them his job?

 

[Ace]

I once worked at a hotel that was just opening up. As a lot of places do, they overhired to start with then needed to cut about a half-dozen people. I was young and living at home and my job wasn't cut. But some guy who worked in the kitchen with a wife and kids was axed.

I went to the manager and said, "Hey, if I quit can so-and-so keep his job?" They said, "Yes." So I quit.

 

[novelist_wannabe]

I think the column assumes that management is going to lay people off. If that's a given, then SAS and Grogan have the opportunity to do something good for someone else. As opposed to whatever they're doing now ...

 

[zeke12]

I once worked at a hotel that was just opening up. As a lot of places do, they overhired to start with then needed to cut about a half-dozen people. I was young and living at home and my job wasn't cut. But some guy who worked in the kitchen with a wife and kids was axed.

I went to the manager and said, "Hey, if I quit can so-and-so keep his job?" They said, "Yes." So I quit.

Which is great, and more power to you.

But what if they just fired him, too, and didn't hire someone to replace either?

 

[Alma]

If that's your position, Alma, that's fine, if you're speaking of a charitable act. I'm speaking of ethics. The columnists in question are certainly under no obligation to perform charitable acts, correct? And Bissinger doesn't say in the column that they should leave as an act of charity, either.

But the obvious retort, then, to Bissinger, is to ask why he doesn't offer them his job?

Charity is outside the scope of ethics?

If Bissenger is getting a salary, yeah, I think he could manage without that job.

 

[Ace]

I once worked at a hotel that was just opening up. As a lot of places do, they overhired to start with then needed to cut about a half-dozen people. I was young and living at home and my job wasn't cut. But some guy who worked in the kitchen with a wife and kids was axed.

I went to the manager and said, "Hey, if I quit can so-and-so keep his job?" They said, "Yes." So I quit.

Which is great, and more power to you.

But what if they just fired him, too, and didn't hire someone to replace either?

The point Buzz is trying to make is that both Stephen A and Marley man are well-paid, don't particularly need the job at the paper (and don't seem to be all that into it).

But they must have some leverage because their jobs weren't cut. So I have to assume if they went to the editor and said, "I know you are cutting jobs, if I go can we save some people from being axed?" that would have been possible.