gannett plans to layoff 3,000 by december.

You give it way too much credit.

 

To get the thread back on topic, yeah that has already been announced at our Gannett shop. I didn't read the e-mail, because frankly I didn't want to hear about more "consolidation", but from what I understand they want to begin moving people in early 2010 and have the consolidated ad center fully operational by 2011.

What it means is that anyone in the Gannett chain who does ad production at any site other than Des Moines or Indy will be told they can either move to the new ad center or get laid off. Very similar to the regional copy desk, and I'd imagine they'll fall very short of their projected numbers at the new ad center as well.

It's one thing to offer someone a promotion or whatever that may take them out of state. It's another to tell them if they want their job, they have to move their family thousands of miles away. I wonder if anyone at the top of Gannett ever even considers these things before going through with these plans.

 

Drip actually brought up a decent point, although it's true that it didn't sound like that was all he was doing.

Nevertheless, employers should not be doing this -- deciding for you that you probably wouldn't be long for their place and would just be using them.

Honestly, how do they know? Particularly these days, as others have said, when people, may pretty much just want to work? Sure, they might like more money. They might like it if it was a bigger/better paper, or town, or position, or whatever.

But how do employers really know what would happen, or what a particular applicant would do, in any given situation?

You could end up loving the job, whether that is unexpected, or not. You could meet someone special, who maybe makes the difference for you in whether you stay or go. You could, possibly, move up enough within that paper to satisfy your drive and ambition. You could find that you like and enjoy the area more than you thought you would, and decide you want to put down roots.

Or, you might turn out to be a more loyal person than the people at the paper realize, or, you might just get so involved and absorbed in all the work that would required of the prospective job that maybe you won't have the time or the inclination to be looking another job for a while.

We all know how that has been known to happen, quite often, to sports writers.

And, even if none of that did occur, what difference does it really make? People change jobs all the time, and any job short of a high-level one at a true destination paper can fairly be characterized as a potential stepping stone or seen as just a resume stop.

Can't it?

There's nothing wrong with that. Or, at least, there shouldn't be.

 

Of course they consider it. It's an easy way to run people off without having to pay them severance. The people running Gannett are parasites.

 

It's just an excuse they use to hire someone younger, cheaper and easier to intimidate.

 

Thank you. If more people read the post instead of reacting at who the poster is, many of these tiffs would not occur. For the record, and the last time, I do not know anything about JD's personal situation. And in no way was I attacking him. I'd like to leave it at that and let this very important thread continue without any conflicts and more importantly, no locks.

 

Anyways,

In this job market, as sucky as it is, if I were making hiring decisions, I would not worry about someone being overqualified because the chances of them finding a better job -- particularly in newspapers -- is pretty slim.

 

Here's the thing about upheaval now:

If you gamble on somebody with experience, and they flee the coop after six months, you may never get a chance to replace that person.

It's never been more important to find somebody who will stick around Podunk.

We've had at least six instances of folks leaving, only to never have them replaced.

 

I don't think people can be happy while discussing Gannett.

 

That's a sad thing. Few words can spell "tang" and "ten." Or "tent" and "nag."

 

It's one thing to offer someone a promotion or whatever that may take them out of state. It's another to tell them if they want their job, they have to move their family thousands of miles away. I wonder if anyone at the top of Gannett ever even considers these things before going through with these plans.

[/quote]

Thanks for that last sentence. I needed an afternoon laugh.