Can someone explain to me the idea of layoffs based on seniority?

[Drip]

schiezainc, no one said life was fair. Best advice I can give you....TAKE IT!!!!!

 

[Michael_ Gee]

Seniority equals higher wages. Without it being protected, layoffs just lop off the highest-paid employees. It's not perfect. But there's really no other way to protect people that's effective. Management is NEVER going to make those choices on pure merit, if only because merit is ultra-subjective.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

Howdy folks,

So, I just found out a couple of moments ago that a newspaper in this state had some (one?) layoff in its sports department and getting the ax is a guy who a lot of people would probably rank as the best and most productive member of their staff. He was cut strictly because he was the low guy on the totem pole and it's a union shop.

I've been debating this topic for a while now and I just can't understand the logic.

At my shop, we had layoffs in 2007 but since we're non-union, the people let go were essentially the people valued the lowest. The main casualty, it turned out, was a news editor who was let go because she wasn't as quick a page designer, didn't write anything but a column and, essentially, provided the least bang for the buck.

Factoring in the idea that those with the most experience would (hypothetically) be making the most, shouldn't layoffs in general be made based on that kind of logic?

Full disclosure: I am probably one of the three most senior guys in my shop and a layoff policy based on seniority would actually be in my best interest but I can't be anything but against this.

Interested to see what you guys think. I do hope, however, that this doesn't turn into a pissing match of union vs. non-union.

You answered your own question.

And to add: Seniority can also be quantified.
Evil was hired to Oct. 27, 2008.
Schiezanic was hired Dec. 1, 205.
There's no debate. Hire date is the hire date.
Productivity can be debated and argued.

 

[YankeeFan]

In addition to Fran's post, two points:

1) Seniority is seen as a safeguard against favoritism/nepotism and a manager letting some petty feud or vindictiveness determine layoffs.

2) Historically it has been a way to push everyone's wages higher, because they couldn't just keep clearing out the top-scale (or above) people and bringing in a fresh batch of employees at the bottom end of the scale.

These are the exact reasons.

I'm not saying a company should be bound by the idea of laying off folks based on seniority, but this is why employees and their unions want the rule, and if they negotiate it into their contract, then more power to them.

 

[Biscayne]

My company cut the nicely paid veterans and kept the inexpensive kids. Now we have very little institutional knowledge left -- and tons of mistakes every day.

 

[da man]

Howdy folks,

So, I just found out a couple of moments ago that a newspaper in this state had some (one?) layoff in its sports department and getting the ax is a guy who a lot of people would probably rank as the best and most productive member of their staff. He was cut strictly because he was the low guy on the totem pole and it's a union shop.

I've been debating this topic for a while now and I just can't understand the logic.

At my shop, we had layoffs in 2007 but since we're non-union, the people let go were essentially the people valued the lowest. The main casualty, it turned out, was a news editor who was let go because she wasn't as quick a page designer, didn't write anything but a column and, essentially, provided the least bang for the buck.

Factoring in the idea that those with the most experience would (hypothetically) be making the most, shouldn't layoffs in general be made based on that kind of logic?

Full disclosure: I am probably one of the three most senior guys in my shop and a layoff policy based on seniority would actually be in my best interest but I can't be anything but against this.

Interested to see what you guys think. I do hope, however, that this doesn't turn into a pissing match of union vs. non-union.

You answered your own question.

And to add: Seniority can also be quantified.
Evil was hired to Oct. 27, 2008.
Schiezanic was hired Dec. 1, 205.
There's no debate. Hire date is the hire date.
Productivity can be debated and argued.

Holy ****. I had no idea Schiezainc was so old.

I must say, you've aged well.

 

[schiezainc]

Howdy folks,

So, I just found out a couple of moments ago that a newspaper in this state had some (one?) layoff in its sports department and getting the ax is a guy who a lot of people would probably rank as the best and most productive member of their staff. He was cut strictly because he was the low guy on the totem pole and it's a union shop.

I've been debating this topic for a while now and I just can't understand the logic.

At my shop, we had layoffs in 2007 but since we're non-union, the people let go were essentially the people valued the lowest. The main casualty, it turned out, was a news editor who was let go because she wasn't as quick a page designer, didn't write anything but a column and, essentially, provided the least bang for the buck.

Factoring in the idea that those with the most experience would (hypothetically) be making the most, shouldn't layoffs in general be made based on that kind of logic?

Full disclosure: I am probably one of the three most senior guys in my shop and a layoff policy based on seniority would actually be in my best interest but I can't be anything but against this.

Interested to see what you guys think. I do hope, however, that this doesn't turn into a pissing match of union vs. non-union.

You answered your own question.

And to add: Seniority can also be quantified.
Evil was hired to Oct. 27, 2008.
Schiezanic was hired Dec. 1, 205.
There's no debate. Hire date is the hire date.
Productivity can be debated and argued.

Holy ****. I had no idea Schiezanic was so old.

I must say, you've aged well.

Thanks. It's all about diet.

 

[Preps]

Easy answer to question. Seniority is not subjective. Someone's evaluation of productivity IS subjective. Give me the former solution any day.

 

[Point of Order]

LIFO

 

[LongTimeListener]

Easy answer to question. Seniority is not subjective. Someone's evaluation of productivity IS subjective. Give me the former solution any day.

We are all operating under the threat of opening THAT can of worms, but I think most people who have dealt with a public school system, and the protected teachers therein, would find many exceptions to this rule. Probably enough to lead to the conclusion that there's a better way.

 

[BTExpress]

Someone's evaluation of productivity IS subjective.

And subject to gross misjudgment.

Let's say someone produces 15 stories a week, and someone else produces 8. What if the 15 were badly written, missed deadline and contained errors, while the 8 were clean and on time, and 2 of them broke news.

Who had the better week?

I'm a desker. Past two nights part of my job has been checking the final edition when it comes off the press for any bad errors.

Two nights ago a promo at the top of 1A refered to the wrong pages. Last night a "Classified Inside" ear was in the top right corner of 1B, when there were no classifieds in the B section.

Now, who outside of the platemaking department is going to know I caught those errors?

Are we at a point in our careers where we need to send out "Look what I did!" e-mails every night to our supervisors so they know how valuable we are?

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

If you don't like unions, work for a non-union paper. Or, ask your colleagues if they want to start a decertification movement (LOL). Otherwise, understand that the workers agreed to the provisions of the contract collectively.

I was in my 20s last time I was part of a union and took an exemption as soon as management offered me one. So, while not an especially big fan of unions, I do favor accepting the reality of the situation.

I will point out that dead wood has no demographic. Every rookie class has stiffs in it. Some of them arrive as dead wood, some of them are obvious dead-wood-in-waiting. Recognizing the latter is an acquired skill.

 

[BTExpress]

I will point out that dead wood has no demographic. Every rookie class has stiffs in it.

There is something to be said about that.

If that person 5 seats over can't hear you asking him/her a question because they have headphones on . . . chances are they are not focused on their job . . . and they are in their 20s. The quality of what they send to the slot is demonstrative proof.

At my previous shop, the most grizzled veteran would handle the most stories just about every night. Hardly a wasted moment in his shift. Just kept plugging and plugging until there was nothing left to plug.

 

[LongTimeListener]

I will point out that dead wood has no demographic. Every rookie class has stiffs in it.

There is something to be said about that.

If that person 5 seats over can't hear you asking him/her a question because they have headphones on . . . chances are they are not focused on their job . . . and they are in their 20s. The quality of what they send to the slot is demonstrative proof.

At my previous shop, the most grizzled veteran would handle the most stories just about every night. Hardly a wasted moment in his shift. Just kept plugging and plugging until there was nothing left to plug.

Threadjack here, but I have been told (and read about studies purporting to show) that to this younger generation that grew up with constant stimuli, the white noise of headphones or an IM window or whatever is necessary to help them concentrate. Like, they'd be more distracted if they didn't have their headphones on.

I can't fathom how it makes sense. But that's the working theory.

 

[Tarheel316]

Easy answer to question. Seniority is not subjective. Someone's evaluation of productivity IS subjective. Give me the former solution any day.

While evaluating productivity us subjective, sometimes the lack of productivity is very obvious.

 

[jr/shotglass]

I have a problem with counting bylines as an indication of productivity, too.

This is what leads to somebody trying to get seven stories on girls' cross-country in each week, while the football writer has five.

Sometimes, knowing what not to write is as important as knowing what to write. Understanding the place of one's beat in the big picture.

 

[Biscayne]

I hate those headphones in newsrooms.

You can't even pick a good fight anymore.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

It's a copout. It allows management to say, "Nothing personal, but you were the last hired."

 

[jr/shotglass]

What I always thought -- and I could definitely be wrong -- is that they believe it would be easier for a younger employee to find another job than a 50+.

Not too many 50+ hirings going on out there.

 

[JC]

It's a copout. It allows management to say, "Nothing personal, but you were the last hired."

Actually, management would love to get rid of the oldest hire. The oldest hire is likely making the most money and has accumulated the most leave. This prevents that. It's far from perfect but I like it better than the randomness that is quality of work.