Big, big changes at USA TODAY

That doesn't really counter Joe's comment about treating people like equipment, but that is no surprise. Gannett has always treated people that way.

 

Fetch me a beer, sports section.

Anyhoo, that first graf makes you sound like freqposter. And from what you post, they're looking for cheaper and more plentiful, not better. And I have no doubt that at one time, there was a buncha dead weight at USAT (I witnessed that). But there have already been numerous purges there, so I don't buy the continued validity of the flab argument. And pushing Weir out the door and not keeping Weiberg indicates a lack of a true desire to upgrade. D-U-M-P.

 

Nailed it.

No matter what, they'll never be able to justify cutting Weir, Pedulla and a few others. It's also rather ridiculous to cut Sergio Non, even though they'll try to justify it by saying MMA Junkie can serve as USA TODAY's MMA coverage from now on.

Good news about Jarrett, Bob and Kevin, though. A question came up earlier about "must-reads" in USA TODAY Sports. There you go. Especially Kevin, given that hockey doesn't have quite as large a press contingent. (Seriously -- I've sometimes wondered if I've accidentally ended up at baseballjournalists.com)

 

I've never seen a paper that wasn't disproporttionately white. To win in court, one would have to prove they were targeted solely because of their ethnicity. Not salary, not performance, not seniority or anything else. That's very tough to do.

 

We see once again that persons making a large salary are easy targets come cut day. It may not be "fair", but that's the reality and most of us would do the same thing. Would you pay $40,000 for a car when a $20,000 version will get you where you need to go?

What I've said many times is that loyalty is a two-way street and, moreso lately, there really is none. So take advantage of what you can while you can, because management won't hesitate to dump anyone when it needs to, track record, performance or seniority notwithstanding. Just the way it is, I guess.

 

I'm stunned to hear about Steve Weiberg. One of the best college writers when it comes to contacts, issues and knowledge. USA Today wants to break more news? It will break less news on the college front without Weiberg.

Also, this whole 24/7 wanting to break news idea seems incredibly stupid. USA Today is a national paper that needs to be more of an overview. How can management expect to break news, particularly in pro sports, when local beat writers are gonna be around teams every day. USA Today can't have the same number of "boots on the ground" as local papers. I understand the idea of a "reorganization" but for USAT to label it as wanting to break more news ... I call bullshit.

 

No idea about Weiberg, but a national publication should indeed be able to break plenty of news. If you're an agent or assistant GM or even a player, you might be more likely to return the call (and develop a relationship with) a beat writer with 2 million readers than with the local (stripped-down) paper.

 

So treat those people like automobiles!

When layoffs are to be followed by fresh hires, do the laid-off ever get the opportunity to accept the lower wage to be paid to the newbies? Wouldn't it be better to see if a longtime employee might be willing to work for the reduced paycheck -- as opposed to pushing him or her overboard with $0 as a weekly paycheck once the severance runs out?

I know the defense usually is, "That person won't be happy and will be looking to leave." But in this industry? In this economy? People might have an easier time of adjusting their expectations down when they stare into the abyss and consider the alternatives.

Anyone not pulling his/her weight, fine, deal with that individually. That's what managing a department is about. But an out-with-the-old, in-with-the-new callousness -- "We're better because they're gone!" -- without any attempt to work with those in place, should earn these new bosses a special place in hell.

 

Perhaps they should be offered the lower salary, but I know I'd be plenty pissed off after accepting it and I'd be sending out resumes by the truckful.

Especially for a company that would be crying poverty after giving its outgoing CEO a $32 million dollar severance package.

 

Stuff like this is why it's highly unlikely I would ever work full-time for a newspaper again. The companies could care less about you as a person. All one is to them is a bottom line and as soon as that isn't profitable, you're done. No matter how good you are.

 

100% agree. You work for a newspaper, you're asking for this to happen. Maybe five years ago someone could reasonably say "I thought I was safe," but nowadays it's just willful ignorance.

 

I'm not going to knock all the hard-working and effective local people on beats, but if you think those people as a whole are dominating breaking news that matters to a national audience because of their location, you haven't been paying enough attention.