D-Day Has Arrived At My Shop. Wish Me Luck.

Another Joe Williams post impresses the hell out of me. The guy has my vote for poster of the year. Always well written and well thought out.

That said, I have been bumped. I am to bump someone this week - or take severance.

I know I've been told to take the job of a photographer. But something's fishy because there is a reporter I have more seniority than, but he's a pet in the newsroom. I feel I'm being forced into bumping the photog to save the reporter, who has NEVER taken a photo and would likely be lost. I've also been told "management won't allow me to bump the news reporter" - for reasons unknown to me, other than they like him. But no arbitrator in the world (if it gets that far) will say a sports reporter can't gather news.

In fact, our managing editor refuses to call us "sports reporters" or "health reporters." He says we're "all reporters." And, he refused to put "sports reporter" on my business cards. He also nominated one of my news stories this year (one of two I wrote) for an award. HE nominated it. NOT me.

 

Pete, whatever you do, good luck to you. What Joe Williams said is right.

 

Is this something you should bring to your chairman or shop steward or whatever it's called?

 

Pete, your paper sucks, but most of ours do.
As far as bumping, there should be no consideration to family situation. The paper is forcing people to bump. It's not the reporter/photog's fault. He/she should never feel guilty about bumping somebody with kids. It's the fucking management's fault. Period.

 

About 15 years ago, I applied for and interviewed for an assistant SID job at a NCAA Division I state university. The pay wasn't anything to write home about, but I was young and willing to bite the bullet to gain experience. I knew I was qualified after 4 years in newspapers and one as an SID intern (basically FT hours for PT pay).

The head SID calls me up and tells me "You were the best qualified candidate and I would have loved to have hired you, but the university president tells me we have to fill this position with a female."

Now THAT'S discrimination. That is part of what gender equity has wrought at colleges and universities. It's not just athletes: it's coaches, administrators, etc. Too many people no longer look for the best-qualified candidate; its a business of filing quotas.

Maybe I'm a little bitter. I've been passed over or laid off on the basis of gender, age, race and salary (making too much money). I've worked my butt off at low-paying gigs for the sake of gaining experience, only to be told I'm overqualified for something. Then I watch some 22-year-old get the spot I was better qualified for. I know I'm not alone, but how the heck is that supposed to make one feel?

 

I have. They suggest I bump the photog, too. For a couple of reasons.
1) I have taken photos and it was suggested when all this began, because the photog is the lowest on the list, that I bump him.
2) There is no language in our contract that says we MUST have a full-time photog. We're all in the same class (photographers, reporters, reporters/photographers)
3) Because of point two, they may just allow the reporter to bump the photographer if I bump the reporter.
4) And because of point four, we're all just right back where we'd be if I just bumped the photographer.

Part of me wants to bump the photog because I'm guaranteed a job. Part of me wants to bump the reporter because it's the proper procedure.

And, if I do bump the reporter, management could get pissed and make my job awful until I quit by not offering an accommodating schedule, giving me crap assignments, etc.

 

I started much more of a ruckus than I intended with this post, and the wrongheadedness of it was explained to me by a former SportsJournalists.com regular on my blog -- he no longer posts here.

So let me clarify a couple of things, and if it intrudes too far onto the original intent of Pete's thread, I apologize. Just want to tie up some loose ends.

First, I do not think single vs. parent with kids should be a major factor in MANAGEMENT deciding who stays and who goes. Probably shouldn't be a factor at all in weighing the merits of one person vs. the other. But I'll admit: If every single other factor leaves the two people "tied," I think maybe the effect on lives other than that of the employee should be given tiebreaker consideration.

However, recalling my mindset on the original post: I really wasn't talking about how management arrives at its decision, although that's what the argument has morphed into. I was really talking about personal ethics: If I'm single, and I've been asked if I want to "bump" a person with two kids, I'm going to have a lot harder time doing so. Conversely, if I've got two kids to take care of, and the potential bumpee is single, then my ethics are going to skew the other way: That it sucks, but if I have no viable alternatives -- and I'd try mightily to find them -- then I might have to do the distasteful thing and bump the other person as a matter of responsibility to my family.

Hope this clarifies; this was more of a personal matter, not a matter of what I think company policy should be.

 

I figured that was what you meant all along SF. And, it's funny, I read this seconds after the other photographer here, whose last day is Friday, said "I don't blame you Pete if you bump Photog 2. You have to know that he's single, he's good and he's not married with a mortgage. That has to make it easier."

Thing is. It doesn't. The bottom line is this: I'm the guy who has to put someone out of work. And I didn't sign up for this.

By the same token, if I were only married and still renting. My wife and I would have been long gone by now.

By the way, I don't mind in the least that this thread has been jacked, morphed, or whatever. A good debate is always healthy in my books — no matter if it's on my thread or not.

 

I appreciate the situations of other people and other families and would do anything I could to aid them... but if I'm put in a position of me or another co-worker... I'd be hard pressed to pick against myself. I hope I'm never in that position and don't envy Pete... but just because I'm single and someone else is married doesn't mean I should put myself in the jackpot to their benefit. Are they going to help pay my bills?

Pete, I don't envy you in this situation. And I wish you all the best as it continues.



Edit: Fix typo and include missing word

 

Good luck, Pete.

 

Pete, this may sound cold but it's dog eat dog now. I know you feel for your colleague but you also have to think about yourself.

 

Fixed.