gannett plans to layoff 3,000 by december.

Stagger, I was just tracking the logic and a likely Gannett response, though I'll burn for a few minutes in hell at least for ever, ever seeing things "their" way, even academically. I hate businesses that are run this way and I blame newspaper management by and large for fiddling away the Internet option. One of my first jobs was for a paper that was masterful at posting memos about the dire decline in profits, to make us feel that the sky was falling when the bottom line was simply a little less black. Never red, not even close, not back then.

I will point out, though, that lots of people making $75K feel they are just scraping by paycheck-to-paycheck. There have been surveys done that show the average Joe always feels that a 50 percent pay bump is all it would take to make life easy. Trouble is, people making $35K feel that and so do those making $350K.

 

I got your point and I do respect your opinion and see your side of it. I've had that discussion before that it's just cyclical. When Gannett puts the pinch on us (the employee), we put the pinch on someone else, who then puts the pinch on someone else, etc. Eventually, it comes back to someone not getting the paper anymore or buying an ad, and it starts the cycle all over.

And I hear you on everyone feeling like they live paycheck-to-paycheck. A friend of mine, who is an attorney, recently prevailed on a multi-million dollar case, went out and bought a new house and everytime I talk to him, he makes it sound like if he takes a day off from work, he'll lose everything. I guess everyone's "luxuries" scale according to pay.

 

That's the beauty of our current economy. Every business owner has decided to crush labor costs down to the absolute minimum, either through layoffs or pay freezes or sending work overseas. Then he wonders why no customers are coming through his doors. Well, maybe because your customers are your golf buddy's laborers. And vice versa, numbnuts.

 

The idea that there's no difference between a company making no profit and a family dropping to the poverty line is everything that is wrong with capitalism as it is practiced in this country (not that there aren't things right with it too).

 

Capitalism is the best system, but it's not a perfect system.

Or as Churchill or somebody said, capitalism is the worst system, except for all the others.

 

This has not been a good decade for capitalism, but as long as people equate European-style socialism with Soviet-era communism, there won't be much incentive to change. Here's an NYT piece on the subject:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/weekinreview/01leibovich.html

 

Up until recently, I believed that capitalism would always thrive in our country because companies would need to reinvest and regularly develop new ideas and products to stay ahead in a competitive market.

But now I see many companies - newspapers included - unable to develop better long-term plans. Cutting back, laying off and downsizing isn't working anymore. Fewer people are paying for a product that has less substance, less quality and (in some cases) costs more. Less money is coming in, but newspapers, for one, continue to expect the same return.

Now I'm at the point where I'd favor whatever is needed to help turn around the economy and help those in need. But I don't see how giving the government more control and power will help, especially with a bloated stimulus. Government is undisciplined fiscally and rarely, if ever, gives any of its power back to the people.

As for socialism, I agree with Winston Churchill. He once said: "Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police."

I believe socialist ideals put too much responsibility on the government to make decisions that citizens can themselves. I want the government to establish policy and law, not "bail" me out when I make poor financial decisions or give us all handouts.

Given the choice of the two, I'll gladly stick with capitalism. We just need more responsible and accountable people in positions of leadership.

That's the end of my political thoughts for the day. Time for a nap.

 

I hate to be the one that keeps dragging this old thread back up but, I've been trolling the Gannett blog for a few weeks and rumors of second quarter furloughs/layoffs are all over the place.

Today however, Jim Hopkins confirmed what anonymous posters have been saying all week. Jim said a source with a 100 percent track record said layoffs for the community publishing division will come at the beginning of the second quarter. (Search through the comments and see for yourself)

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8099437767970534324&postID=6013461891099907797&pli=1

I don't know what else, among the other anonymous posts are worth looking into. Recently, there has been a lot of garbage postings about furloughs and stuff by anonymous posters so I would take those comments with a grain of salt.

 

I've heard those same rumors and there are a couple other places that may follow suit. I am convinced that they are making cuts and furloughs just for the fuck of it.

 

I just searched through the comments, and it appears what Jim actually said was that his source confirmed there would be another one-week furlough in Q2 (April-June) and layoffs are planned for Gannett's newspapers, "although they did not specify timing."

The other part of the rumor is that Gannett will issue a "One week 'temporary' payroll reduction" for all its workers. Not sure exactly what they mean by this. And the rumor is that it'll all be announced officially Monday.

 

From what I gather, it would be a pay cut that equals one week worth of pay, which would be 2 percent if broken out over a full year. But it won't be broken out over the full year; it'll be broken out over one quarter, so it's a 7 percent or so reduction that lasts a quarter. (Uh huh. Sure.) So you would basically work 12 weeks and get paid for 11. (Assuming no furloughs, of course.)

They'd better be real, real careful about calling it a "one week temporary payroll reduction" or whatever, though, because it sounds to me like they're coming awfully close to not paying people for a week of work. (Like a furlough, except you can keep coming to work!)

 

I'd much rather have the furloughs than the payroll deduction. Then I could at least get unemployment.