gannett plans to layoff 3,000 by december.

If I knew I had to take a pay cut so the paper could maintain a specific profit margin it would piss me off to no end. I'd actually rather get laid off, get the benefits etc. than feel like I was giving money back to the company so they could maintain profit levels.
And you have to figure that if Gannett does this, they NEED people to stay. It's not like the company has really been concerned about laying people off before. Either they can't afford layoff exit packages or they figure the only way they will be able to make their margins is to pay people less. The company has already suspended 401k contributions, had their health care plan wipe out any raise they may have given employees and eroded the product to the point of pity. I know people have mortgages and they have to do what they have to do, but they shouldn't feel they have to be "good sports" about it.

 

Gannett won't abandon the print edition just yet. Slowly but surely it will continue to tear apart the print product, milking a little more from its workers every quarter until nothing's left.

It started with one week of unpaid, involuntary leave. (Screw using the word "furlough.") Next it will be a 5 percent pay cut in the second quarter. In the third quarter, it will be a furlough and another pay cut. By the fourth quarter they'll do a furlough, another pay cut and some layoffs.

Gannett established its operation formula a long time ago. Nothing has changed.

For content, it throws a couple crappy flavor-of-the-month ideas out there a year and see what sticks. Eventually, most of those ideas fade away. In the end, you look back and realize how big a waste of time they were and how it took focus away from our main objective: Inform local readers of timely and relevant news.

In terms of finances, it's cut, cut, cut instead of actually making smarter plans to cover important events and issues that will keep our readers coming back for more.

I wish readers and advertisers realized how much power they really had. Corporate will listen when you start talking about big-time money commitments. Until more readers and advertisers speak up, nothing will get better in this industry.

Sadly, in my mind, I just don't have the faith anymore in those in power to do the right thing.

 

I do feel sorry at times for my friends who are stuck in this mess. I got laid off, so I didn't have to make that difficult decision. If I were still there, I don't know what I would do.

 

Not to be all Norma Rae, but organizing is still an option.

 

GlenQuagmire, you nailed it. They are still making money. They just aren't hitting their projections, so to them, they are losing money. Greed is (not) good.

 

Which is why this shallow industry is destroying itself.

 

And this administration is bound to be far more favorable toward labor than the past one. Btw, if you want to know just how much power this wields, when Gannett asked for pay freezes at our shop, the union said, well, sure honchos, but that's a change in the contract and we're going back to the table. And they squeezed out another year for the contract and a LOT of coverage/severance if/when they do start with the layoffs. But I think the earlier post was right, they're pretty much to the bone now if they want to continue to put out what they have so they actually don't want any more people to leave, they just want to pay the ones who are there less, with fewer benefits.

 

I just don't get it. Newspaper X makes $5 million NET profit one year, to include taking care of debt service, then has $4.5 million NET profit the next year, bemoans the fact that profits are "down" 10% and starts taking drastic action.

There ought to be a law, and I hope Obama is listening---if ANY publicly owned company makes at least $100 net profit in any year, it is against the law to lay off employees, eliminate positions, or however you want to spin it for the next 12 months.

Any company that fails to make a net profit, can lay off or eliminate, but the first three people to get laid off must be the top three executives, and then you go from there.

Anyone who violates any part of this goes to jail, period, for five years. maximum security----heck, send them to Gitmo, I hear they'll have some available dorm space pretty soon.

 

P.S. Paddlefoot agrees with me.

 

I know you're joking, at least I hope you're joking. What we really need right now is more government interference.

 

Yeah. Down with government because the free market will take care of itself!

 

I know he's joking, but I wish he wasn't. The only thing that can save our jobs is government interference.