Gannett strikes again

Given how media companies have spun off their newspaper divisions, presumably if they could sell them, they would. However, they would be sold at a massive loss, most likely.

So instead, the companies put the newspaper division on an ice float (calling it a spinoff to "unlock value"), and send it off to die.

 

A friend, who used to be in management at a Gannett paper, told me once they were told in a management seminar where they were told that when someone reapplies for their job and gets it (keeps it) they typically work harder and are better overall employees.

I think that's complete bullshit (he agreed with me) and that it's a complete morale killer, even if you keep your job.

 

Westchester is on a similar timetable.

 

How often is the "reapplication" scenario a way to not only to get rid of certain people, but to reduce salaries -- "We've rehired you for the position, but at a 20 percent pay cut"?

The major metro a few miles down the road from where I live has not put people through a reapplication process, but there's a big gap between what newsroom veterans who've managed to survive the past six or seven years of turmoil are earning and what the paper is paying new hires, even those with a lot of experience. For instance, a section editor who was hired about a year ago after being downsized out of a job at another paper (he has about 30 years of experience) was hired at about $60K a year. The job would have paid about $90K back in the day. And experienced designers have been brought aboard for about $35K. This is at one of the 35 or so largest papers nationally, and the cost of living in the area isn't exactly low.

 

I went thru the reapply for your job BS. My interview consisted of questions that had absolutely zilch to do with execution of my job. In addition, they had my "exit package" material on the table so I guess it didn't matter whether my answers were value-added with stats, video and music.

 

Occasionally I've argued that people should be given the option of enduring the pay cut, if that's what the new reality is, when instead they are simply laid off and then, soon thereafter, the paper hires someone cheaper (and usually less experienced). The rationale always has been, if you force someone to work for less money, they'll resent it and screw the company over in some way (less production, stealing a stapler, whatever).

But in hard times, a pay cut would seem preferable to a job loss. I believe a few unions have even accepted cuts in salaries with the guarantee of saving some positions. For some duration anyway.

 

Dean Singleton did this in the late 1990s. The man is an innovator in ways to treat people like cattle.

 

Exit package as in the benefits you were receiving as a laid off employee? That's terrible.

 

Yep.

 

I'm sure Gannett couches it in "nicer" terms, but they are firing/laying off their entire workforce. How are they getting around the 60-day notice?

 

Serious question: if you're a young journalist and a new hire in one of these places, will others attach a stigma to you? Are you a "scab of the future" so to speak?

I don't feel one way or the other about it, but would be interested to know industry veterans' thoughts on it. It seems like it could cheapen the resumes across the board.

 

If this happened to me, it would kill my morale. Work harder? Yeah, I'd work a hell of a lot harder to find another job while I squeeze a few more paychecks half-assing it for the bastards that made me reapply for my job.