gannett plans to layoff 3,000 by december.

I was under the impression the layoffs were going to be performance based. That's what the editor thought, anyway. Sounds like corporate may have a different idea. Guess we will find out soon enough.

 

If he does, it's a lawsuit waiting to happen...

Welcome to the Gannett way to do business...

 

With Gannett it might be performance based - in reverse.

 

Yeah, wouldn't want quality to get in the way of putting out a product.

Better done than good.

 

Sweet.

 

I, along with others sharing the same position as me at work, will be getting the axe soon. One of my fellow soon-to-be-axed agrees. We see the signs, certain things we do are being replaced with a terrible system that doesn't work, our hours have been cut, bonuses went out the door months ago. I've, almost laughingly, told my boss that I feel like that is the company's goal, and he acted totally dumbfounded at the idea. They already have a hiring freeze, where if the position becomes open, it cannot be filled again, so I don't know why he's so shocked at the notion.

There are also three positions below me that once they become open, we are not allowed to fill them. We will have to decide which employees to delegate the work to. I just hope they will keep it at "once they become open." One of the employees has a baby and another on the way, one has three children and the other just went through a divorce and has had to start over from scratch with nothing. I'm assuming when the pregnant one goes on leave, she'll be screwed out of her job, one way or another.

 

All over the country, competent newspaper people are being "put down" solely for financial reasons. Meanwhile an editor whose job it is to maximize his workers' output and potential offers up a list that includes two people who shouldn't be holding down their jobs in the first place. Assuming that the editor has properly managed those people -- a big assumption, given the lack of worthwhile feedback or development at many newspapers -- then it looks as if the editor himself isn't doing the job of running a department. If you have hiring/firing authority and you let company money fly out the door in the pockets of staffers who shouldn't be retained, you're a lot more deserving of a layoff than some copy editor or reporter who otherwise meets or exceeds expectations.

 

I've yet to hear of a buyout or layoff that was "performace-based"

The majority of the people who have been let go, pushed out or whatever you want to call it have made the mistake of reaching a level of success where they might be one of the higher-paid people on staff and they're the ones who are getting fucked.

 

Legally, they cannot have layoffs that are performance based. That would be firing folks and the company might be liable for unlawful termination if they ever said they were getting rid of 10 percent of the work force and the 10 percent would come from the least productive or biggest pains in the ass.

Not saying that some surgical strikes don't happen, but they usually are hidden within the good folks.

 

So it is legally prohibited from shedding your worst 10 percent, if your staff is forced to shrink by 10 percent? All because "worst" is subjective or something and could either be used against you or hurt someone in their next job search? You have to get rid of some good people just for cover and then not make any reference to the quality of the discards (other than to wish them all health and happiness on the way out)?

Then these newspapers that have no chance anyway really have no chance.

 

I think you've finally got it, Joe.

 

Another lawsuit waiting to happen.