Gannett Buyouts

Well, sure, everybody could use some help! That's true everywhere. I was just saying that four photographers seemed like overkill for a mid-size daily.

 

Depends on what one considers mid-size. And what they cover, the sheer square mileage, do they consider themselves hyperlocal, level of AP wire the shop has access to and if their CPs - and everything else, for that matter - on 1 must be local, etc. ... too many variables.

At some places, four could well be overkill ... worked at one place where it was pretty well known that a photographer who had pretty convenient hours would spend hours "toning" his photos (no, I'm not a photog but at some point, you're not toning but either manipulating or clock-watching). At others, they're still running around bordering on short-staffed because they shoot houses for real-estate ads, and other non-daily publications printed by said shop.

 

I salute you. Seriously. You are a great person.

 

Are you still in newspapers? I respect you greatly for your stance on this and what you did in this case. I can't believe the EE backed you, though. I just can't believe this would work in many news organizations. Somehow someway you'd be fired for doing something like that.

 

I like it. I love the way you handled this. I'm just saying there aren't many Doc Hollidays out there. Here's how it usually works. New employee after a month gets called on carpet for putting OT. "We don't allow OT here." Then somebody else on the staff, a non suit, explains to the rebel person how it works in "journalism." You do the job and don't worry about the hours. "Just put 40, it'll even out in the summer when it isn't as busy (ha)." Then forewarned, all is well as another person has been integrated into the sports world of working 70 and being paid for 40. ...
Also, if a person continues to rebel, then he/she will have hours monitored closely by a suit up until each second of the day/week is accounted for. The reporter quickly figures out he/she doesn't want to have to explain an hour-long haircut or dog grooming and joins the work 70 club.

 

Knew a guy who appealed his review, said it was factually innaccurate, ended up going over the ME's head to the EE. Stones.

 

I'm sure this happens but having worked part-time for a newspaper while in college, I was taught by my previous employer the actual law. Shock -- they were family owned, not corporate owned. .. Needless to say, when I went full-time a year later with a corporate owned paper, they tried to screw me from the word go. Remember, this was the '90s, when newspapers were absolutely kicking ass and rolling in dough. Still, they tried to screw their employees. Nothing has changed 27 years later.

Eventually, I got back to another private, family owned paper and didn't have to deal with that bullshit anymore. And, though I work for a corporate now, I still don't deal with that BS. Since that very first experience, I've always held that if I'm hourly then I'm getting paid for the hours I work. Otherwise, they can fire me. I can survive until something better comes along.

 

My memory may be failing me but I think a guy in Detroit won a Pulitzer and did not get an outstanding that year.

 

What I don't get, is why lie in the reviews? Why not just give them a factual review and when it comes to a raise, say "sorry, we wish it could be more." Instead, you just make people feel undervalued AND underpaid." An honest review costs them nothing.

 

Would Ganett do anything that really made sense?

 

Many moons ago, I think I got a 1 or a 0.

My total phone issues: 1. We were swamped with calls and I told someone asking for a score it would be in the paper. 2. The guy giving the review was having a tantrum about something he’d told us to do a while back. I thought he was done talking and put down the phone. He was not, so he called back to yell and make sure he was the one to hang up on me.

I got the same shit raises as everyone else.

 

32 man hours a day? That’s the good journo math.