Big, big changes at USA TODAY

Ah, it's been done.

 

They were doing that TPP supplemental pay thing with unemployment, which was a joke because in some states, they basically didn't pay anything. With their recent buyouts, they offered the old-timers the 2-weeks per year package, although they didn't accept everyone who applied.

Which, I would think, would be extremely demoralizing if you were willing to take the offer and then they kept you on just to dump more work on you.

 

Pedulla speaks with Sherman -- interesting stuff. He'll be covering the Belmont. Just not for USA TODAY. And he makes a pretty good case that he apparently didn't have a real chance to make to the powers that be.

http://shermanreport.com/fired-usa-today-sportswriter-never-got-face-to-face-interview-to-keep-job-of-31-years/

 

Has there been a full list somewhere and I just missed it?

 

Some damn good people getting the boot. Pedulla is a pro and a good guy.

 

All sympathy for the loss of his job, it sounds like Pedulla also made some assumptions about how these things work that are not rooted in reality, specifically the part about the lack of a face-to-face interview being a good sign.

 

A lot were posted in the comments at the Gannett blog, but I've heard from a few more people who were let go and weren't named there.

 

I have heard talk basically boasting that the head count will be greater when the new regime gets done hiring its own people. As if that makes it OK to throw overboard all those who have been a part of things previously.

In this economy, in this industry, in this job market, it is unconscionable to just dump people so you can hire replacements of your own choosing. If you're any good as a manager, you work with the people you inherit and play to their strengths. This isn't the junior-varsity where you just post a list of cuts and expect people -- and their families and their lives -- to deal with it.

If this is how the new era is beginning at USAT, I hope they all go down in flames rather swiftly.

 

What gets me is that so many of the cuts are nonsensical. They want people who can handle breaking news and/or bring a unique voice? Well, a lot of the people they cut fit that mold, even if they'd be considered old by Deadspin or Bleacher Report standards.

 

Why dignify this as anything but the straightforward salary dump it is? If you're not cutting people to cut costs, layoffs have only one other purpose -- cutting payroll to cut costs.

 

But I keep hearing that they're going to spend BIG for some of the new hires and will even be giving raises to current people who successfully survive the stupid apply-for-your-old-job-or-your-colleagues'-while-he's-still-in-it ordeal. And if the head count winds up equal to or greater than what they had, this is more a case of leaving someone else's old furniture at the curb so you can go buy fancy new furniture.

It treats people, their livelihoods and their families like desks and chairs. It wants to pretend that careers and years of service are worthy of no more respect than slots on the company softball team ("You're cut. You're in.") It shows a complete lack of creativity on the part of bosses who can't work with those they inherit and an immaturity in wanting newly hired people who will be beholden to them.

Running off people in mid-to-late career, into this economy and journalists' job market, strikes me as almost criminal just to "change things up" on a whim and a prayer that consumers are going to actually respond.

 

I'm one of the survivors here. I thought I'd come on (in a secure location) and clarify a few points made on this board and other sites. I probably won't use this account again, but here's what I'm willing to share:

-- No one I spoke with was expecting 15 cuts (which followed five previous cuts in upper management). There were expected to be a few. Ten was the highest guess I had heard.

-- Three great reporters, all of whom I am confident would have landed desired gigs had they stayed, left on their own accord: Vicki Michaelis (Olympics), Steve Wieberg (colleges) and Marlen Garcia (college basketball). They were not counted among the 15 but left, to my understanding, as a direct result of the reorganization.

-- Good people and good journalists lost their jobs, and I don't want to minimize that at all. But a few of the cuts were comprehendable. In a lot of the cases, it was a matter of money: Three digital producers were cut, and the management can probably turn their total salaries into five digial producers. That list goes on and on. It's not right or fair, but it's the mentality we all knew they had going in. It's why so many veterans were in fear for the past two months.

-- The notion that half of the racial minorities here were cut is not quite accurate, but the number was staggering. Seven of the 15 layoffs were racial minorities.

-- There are things to be excited about. Jarrett Bell (NFL), Bob Nightengale (MLB) and Kevin Allen (NHL) were promoted to columnist positions and will do great work. We've needed to increase specialization and focus on actually breaking the news more for years. The new organizational chart had and has a lot of potential. What's upsetting is this notion that 19 people -- good people and good journalists -- could not fit into the new structure.

-- One of the fundemental problems that led to this restructring came because of the previous structure here. The department, as with USA TODAY as a whole, spent a ton of money in the 1990s and early 2000s. All you need to do is look at our offices. People, including many still around, were paid well, and the compensation didn't always match the output. My guess is the new management came in and was stunned at some of the salaries. I've always justified this pay because we're the nation's newspaper. But I understand completely that they will be able to find good people at reduced rates. It's not good or fair or what I would do, but it's the cold-hearted business decision.

-- The product itself, particularly usatoday.com/sports, is getting a complete revamp. I won't go into specifics except to say that if the plan works, it would be very good for the company. The plan was never the problem. The execution thus far and into the future may be.

-- There are a lot of positions open. The highest profile are two AME spots and top spots on the NFL, MLB, colleges and NBA desks. We're expecting them to hire, by the end of the summer, at least a handful of digital producers, a slew of bloggers, a few reporters (colleges was hit particularly hard) and at least a few of those senior positions.

Moving forward, there is a lot of uncertainty. Things were gloomy, to say the least, on Wednesday and Thursday. This new management team had better be right.