Shafer: Buyouts R good, old folks gotta go

[Joe Williams]

Jack Shafer of Slate goes all "Logan's Run" on newspaper industry and veteran staffers. He says buyouts are good because they open up jobs for youngsters who can be paid less and work harder. In other words, he caters to every stereotype about age/experience in this business. At the same time, he dishonestly suggests that the typical buyout is approximately two years worth of salary and that those who accept buyouts can easily find teaching jobs at big-name universities.

(Oh, wait, he does include one parenthetical sentence about how some people are not so fortunate. Nice of him.)

Still, this is riddled with false premises about what is going on in newsroom downsizings, and blatantly ignores the sort of six-weeks-pay "buyouts" doled out in L.A.:

http://www.slate.com/id/2188417/pagenum/all/#page_start

 

[WaylonJennings]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not like they're rehiring these bought out positions. Correct?

 

[JBHawkEye]

Wonder what he'll think if someday Mr. Shafer gets bought out?

 

[WaylonJennings]

Wonder what he'll think if someday Mr. Shafer gets bought out?

He addresses it:

"I may be risking self-extermination."

 

[WaylonJennings]

He's right, though. It's good that Yale Law graduate and former New York Times columnist Adam Liptak finally caught a break in life :

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Great to see Shafer go all Andy Grove on us.

You're next, Jack.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Kill the institutional memory.

Hire malleable young suckers, who think the early '90's are barely-relevant ancient history.

That's the ticket.

Perspective, baby.

 

[Ace]

What the hell. When you get to be 55 or so, you're just taking up valuable air and resources that younger, harder-working people could use.

You may as well slash your wrists and save the company the buyout cost. But don't do your typical half-assed job or that will just drive up health insurance rates for the hard-working folks.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Thanks, Frankie.

 

[Joe Williams]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not like they're rehiring these bought out positions. Correct?

Good point. And it has been my experience (first-hand and bystander) that 1 out of every 2 "reassignments" gets done to **** off the person in the hopes that he or she will leave. Sans buyout or severance money. Chicken-bleep managers don't have the guts to just whack someone and pay up, so they make them suffer professional death of a thousand cuts.

(Boy, just re-read that, and I sound a little cranky. Wonder why.)

 

[WaylonJennings]

I know I already said this, but I can't get it out of my head: I can't believe he uses Andy ****ing Liptak as the example of someone whose career was being repressed by all the dead weight. Yale Law-educated, New York Times-employed Andy Liptak.

Meanwhile, no one from 22-30 can get a job for more than $35K a year, and that's considered good money.

But Andy ****ing Liptak is finally getting his just due.

I hate when people like O'Reilly say the media is full of "elites."

But this, friends, is an elitist piece, lacking all perspective on what's killing the soul of this business. It's not that Andy ****ing Liptak is stuck writing his column at the New York Times, sitting on the nest egg he acquired while working at a big fancy NYC law firm.

It's that thousands of kids are walking off college campuses with $100K in debt and absolutely no jobs available, no future, no matter how hard they work and persevere.

But, ****, at least these buyouts and layoffs are giving the Andy Liptaks of the world their fair shot.

 

[Mediator]

I love how he uses Linda Greenhouse as an example -- like having 30 years of experience in law is a bad thing, because as we know the legal system has changed so dramatically in the last few years. Maybe you could make that argument about a science or tech writer, but come on! And what about all the geezers on the Supreme Court itself? They got their degrees like half a century ago. Wouldn't his logic transfer to every other field?

Shafer should just walk quietly to the nearest iceberg and set himself afloat.

 

[Ace]

I agree with Mr. Shafer. His writing has a rancid boomer tang.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Shafer's just reminded me just how many of his columns irritate me.

Thanks, Jack.

 

[Starman]

Your day will come, cocksmoker.

Go eat a ****ing bullet.

 

[SixToe]

I've always wondered why Jack Shafer's opinion matters, or seems to matter, so much.

He always weighs in on newspapers from his lofty Slate perch he apparently believes is impervious to any problem. He's been around for awhile. Maybe it's time for him to be cut loose for some younger Internet star.

**** him. As Starman said, his day will come.

 

[Joe Williams]

This business offers precious few reasons to stay in it long-term anyway (assuming you're already in it short-term): Hardly any real promotions (it's the structure's fault as much as yours that a reporter or line editor might be pulling the same duty 20 years on). Cutbacks in travel, space and time allowed to actually develop stories or do designs. Lousy raises or none at all.

Now this jackass encourages pushing out veteran people to make room for cheaper youth (shame on those oldsters for accepting cost-of-living raises).

Did someone euthanize the previous generation of old-timers so that the boomers had it easy in moving along their career paths? Don't think so. They earned their chances or waited their turns. That's not good enough for Shafer.

So this is like the mistress who steals the husband and becomes the wife. She's just setting herself up for when it's her turn to get cheated on and jilted. What could possibly make the journalists in their 20s and 30s think that they'll be valued and employed in their 40s and 50s if this is how their bosses and their companies treat the "old" folks now? They might have a warped sense of time and mortality, the youngsters, but they surely can add 2 + 2.

 

[slappy4428]

Jack Shafer of Slate goes all "Logan's Run" on newspaper industry and veteran staffers. He says buyouts are good because they open up jobs for youngsters who can be paid less and work harder. In other words, he caters to every stereotype about age/experience in this business. At the same time, he dishonestly suggests that the typical buyout is approximately two years worth of salary and that those who accept buyouts can easily find teaching jobs at big-name universities.

(Oh, wait, he does include one parenthetical sentence about how some people are not so fortunate. Nice of him.)

Still, this is riddled with false premises about what is going on in newsroom downsizings, and blatantly ignores the sort of six-weeks-pay "buyouts" doled out in L.A.:

http://www.slate.com/id/2188417/pagenum/all/#page_start

That's the kind of nonsensical bull**** that spews from jack Lessenberry.

 

[Starman]

Jack Shafer of Slate goes all "Logan's Run" on newspaper industry and veteran staffers. He says buyouts are good because they open up jobs for youngsters who can be paid less and work harder. In other words, he caters to every stereotype about age/experience in this business. At the same time, he dishonestly suggests that the typical buyout is approximately two years worth of salary and that those who accept buyouts can easily find teaching jobs at big-name universities.

(Oh, wait, he does include one parenthetical sentence about how some people are not so fortunate. Nice of him.)

Still, this is riddled with false premises about what is going on in newsroom downsizings, and blatantly ignores the sort of six-weeks-pay "buyouts" doled out in L.A.:

http://www.slate.com/id/2188417/pagenum/all/#page_start

That's the kind of nonsensical bull**** that spews from jack Lessenberry.

A legend in his own mind. Tremendously important and influential, and he will tell you so any old day -- when he can take time out from his awesome positions as staff know-it-all at a nickel-and-dime journalism school, and screeching-hyena columnist for a washed-up-hippie alt-weekly. : :

 

[Mediator]

And what's with making sure the president has to be at least 35? There have got to be some promising 22-year-olds with some flashy new ideas about how to run the country! Just think if a much younger Bush I could've blogged about throwing up on the Japanese prime minister...