Does your shop force you to take breaks?

Rhody and Shies should be deported, rules are rules

 

JC, well played.

 

Yeah, well, I am a legal citizen of this country so your argument holds no water.

 

waterytart's does, by definition.

 

It's the ME's responsibility to manage that crap. It's not the job of the publisher to agree that breaks aren't possible. If your current coverage plans get in the way of taking breaks, then change your coverage. The unwillingness to do so just proves you two are trying to be heroes.

 

It's not a matter of being heroes. It's a matter of putting out quality sections.

And since we have one of the state's most highly recognized sports sections, I would say we do a pretty good job.

 

This. We outright lie on our timecards all the time. I put down 40 for each week, no matter how much I work. They won't pay overtime, at least not to reporters. That's been out for years. Desk people somehow can still pull OT. Not sure about that double standard but that's a fight for another day. I worked 68 during US Open week. I put down 40. I worked 12 the following week. I put down 40. As long as the people above me are OK with that, I'm OK with that. It's reality in sports. Some weeks are going to be much heavier than others.

If we had to do letter-of-the-law timecards, shit just wouldn't get done on busy weeks. No way around it.

 

STOP BEING A HERO!!!! </sarcasm>

This is exactly my point. I'm totally OK with the reality of this industry and what it requires but it would just be nice if management was on board with this. Our previous publisher gave us the wink, wink treatment and it was fine. I don't know why this lady has to be different.

Glad to see we're not in some separate boat here.

 

Trust me, I wouldn't work extra hours during college football season or random heavy weeks if I wasn't comped for it somehow.

 

Because if someone from your chain ever got really pissed and wanted to make some money, the whole "wink wink" thing means they'd probably get sued and lose? It would also be germane for any other sort of lawsuit, to bring up that they regularly skirt labor laws.

 

How would they get sued? We're signing timecards that say it's a "true and accurate" representation of the time we worked so the company would have to do nothing more than show that as evidence and be in the right. Now, if we had evidence that they were using a wink, wink system, that would be another thing but there's a reason that type of deal is conducted under the table.

 

Basically, schiezainc thinks his publisher is an idiot for wanting to remove the "wink, wink " system.

As I've said before, schiezainc and Rhody31's egos are the issue. They complain the quality of the paper would suffer too much. So be it. Newspapers aren't the only company to sacrifice quality. I'm sure the quality of the paper has suffered with cutbacks. All you can do is put out the best section you can under the constraints handed down.

In the end, it's not their call to make. The liabilities from a lawsuit are greater than the potential lost revenue for a lower quality section.

What is the big issue for in not following the edict, anyway? Are they worried their chances of landing a job at the big daily within the chain or at the "big" daily in their state will suffer?