Buyout/severance question

[SoBeOrNotSoBe]

So my wife is being involuntarily bought out by McClatchy. (I survived, for now.) A little background: We arrived at our current paper, which has been McClatchy all along, five years ago. Our previous paper was a Knight-Ridder joint.

Now we're being told that her severance will account for time served only at the current paper, even though she has five more years in K-R -- which of course was swallowed by McClatchy a few years ago.

We were fed some line from our heartless EE and our HR director about "last hire date" being the determining factor. We're thinking about lawyering up. If there are examples out there of folks who are being compensated for K-R years that came before they left for McClatchy, we'd love to know about them. It would essentially make our case. Knowledge is power in these sad times.

Our argument is this: McClatchy assumed EVERYTHING when it ate K-R. If you worked at, say, The Miami Herald from 1998 to 2003, then went to the Fresno Bee, then McClatchy bought K-R a couple years later, then McClatchy decided to buy you out, shouldn't you be credited for 10 years' service? After all, if the same person stayed in Miami the whole time, he or she would be credited for 10 years under both companies.

Anyone? Thanks!

 

[WazzuGrad00]

I don't think it works that way.

I would think your years of service ended when you left the K-R paper.
If you had been at the K-R paper when it was bought by McClatchy, you'd get credit.

 

[deskslave]

<b> After all, if the same person stayed in Miami the whole time, he or she would be credited for 10 years under both companies. </b>

Anyone? Thanks!

Key line. That person didn't stay in Miami. That person moved. You don't get to claim you worked for Knight-Ridder during a period of time when Knight-Ridder still existed and you weren't working for them.

 

[pressmurphy]

I don't think you have a leg to stand on. It would have only mattered if you were still at the K-R paper at the time of the acquisition.

IIRC, the late Shelby Strother had escaped Gannett many years ago, then was sucked back in by the Detroit acquisition. If the purchase has happened a month earlier, he would have retained his pension/vacation/etc. perks, but instead he had to start all over.

That's not exactly the same as your situation, but the concept is pretty close.

 

[Joe Williams]

You changed jobs. Tenure at one place ended, tenure at next place began. It wasn't like you were "transferred" within an existing chain.

If you lawyer up over five year's worth of credit toward any severance, you will spend most or all of that additional money (and maybe more to boot) on the attorney. And you will most likely lose.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

In college, I worked for a business that, on my first day of hire, had been sold to a larger company. At the meeting to announce the sale, employees were told that it was their first day at the new company, and that all vacation time, and benefits were to be earned from that moment on.

I would think that you don't have a case here for anything more than five years.

 

[Boom_70]

Does the paper honor employees with service awards? If so that might set a precedent for how they determine total service. Most companies bridge for award purposes - for example if you were at paper 10 years in 2008 - 5 yrs owed by previos owner - you would be honored for 10 years of service.

A good friend of mine hung his organization on just that. Company wanted to cash him out and only provide credit for his service under new ownership which was 10 years.

He walked into HR with a letter from company President that was sent to him previous year congratulating him on his 20 years of loyal service with xxxxxx company. Company backed down and gave everyone full credit for service rendered.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

I'd sue and hope they give you money just to go away.

 

[VJ]

But would they give him more money than the legal fees? Doubtful.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

But would they give him more money than the legal fees? Doubtful.

If you can find a lawyer who will just take a percentage. I don't know if you can for a situation like this.

I do know someone in the business who they tried to lay off about five years ago. He sued for age discrimination. They settled it by letting him keep his job. There have been three rounds of buyouts/layoffs since and he's never been let go.

 

[EStreetJoe]

Not sure I've ever heard of a severance package that included time worked at another paper, even if its within the same company.
You only get credit for time served at the current paper.
Just accept it as a hard fact of life.
Then again, what do I know, September will mark 19 years for me at the same paper.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

Not sure I've ever heard of a severance package that included time worked at another paper, even if its within the same company.
You only get credit for time served at the current paper.
Just accept it as a hard fact of life.
Then again, what do I know, September will mark 19 years for me at the same paper.

If it's the same chain, it should count.

 

[txsportsscribe]

just playing devil's advocate here but since a severance package or buyout offer isn't required by law, why would you have any grounds to sue when you didn't like the offer?

 

[Appgrad05]

Not sure I've ever heard of a severance package that included time worked at another paper, even if its within the same company.
You only get credit for time served at the current paper.
Just accept it as a hard fact of life.
Then again, what do I know, September will mark 19 years for me at the same paper.

If it's the same chain, it should count.

It should count if you are transferred. If you leave voluntarily, no dice.

 

[Joe Williams]

I'm surprised some prick on here hasn't said something about how "This is what you get when you become a two-newspaper employee couple."

(Wait, someone just did.)

The way this business is going, a 50 percent survival rate probably is the best you can hope for.

Nothing personal, Sobe, but I never trusted the package-deal people anyway, once they start moving to new papers. You hang out, sleep with and marry someone you work with now, sure, I get how that happens. But once they start changing jobs, they'd better deal with the consequences. I never believed that the second vacancy at a shop was being filled, lo and behold, by "the best person available." It generally was filled by the "best spouse available" because some manager wanted to hire the other half of the couple. Happens in precious few industries, and way too quaint and cozy for one in crisis like this one.

 

[Cadet]

The only reason you believe this, IIRC, is because you wouldn't "allow" your wife to work as a sportswriter in the event that she encounter "foul-mouthed athletes."

 

[Joe Williams]

The only reason you believe this, IIRC, is because you wouldn't "allow" your wife to work as a sportswriter in the event that she encounter "foul-mouthed athletes."

Good memory, wrong order. ;D

I wouldn't want a sportswriter to be my wife, not the other way around. Besides, there is a little extra continued-employment insurance these days in journalists not being married to journalists. Journalists being married to former-journalists-turned-barristas soon will be all the rage, followed quickly enough by former-journalists-turned-barristas married to former-journalists-turned-barristas

 

[a_rosenthal]

It sounds like when she switched papers, McClatchy didn't own KR. They bought KR after you switched papers, correct?

There's no way you can add her service time after the fact.

 

[Hank_Scorpio]

It sounds like when she switched papers, McClatchy didn't own KR. They bought KR after you switched papers, correct?

There's no way you can add her service time after the fact.

Exactly the way I read it too.

They didn't get swallowed up by McClatchy. They left K-R to go to a McC paper.

Only way you would get credit for all the time is if you were with the K-R paper when McC bought it. When you left the K-R, it was still a separate entity.

 

[Northwesterner]

Wait a minute. When McClatchy bought KR, it took on everything associated with it -- from the debt to the dusty personnel files in Storage Room B.

Another example: A KR employee is sexually harassed. The employee leaves KR for McClatchy. A month later, McClatchy buys KR. Employee is laid off. By the logic some of us are using, employee has no one to sue. That's ridiculous.

When you buy a company, you can't be accountable for some things associated with it and not others. McClatchy bought KR's history, not just the buildings and the presses and the trucks.

Talk to a labor lawyer, I say. If he or she is willing to take a percentage or a win-only cut, more power to you.