Gannett strikes again

The job cuts I gave you were from ONE YEAR. The one you gave came over seven years

JP Morgan Chase whacked 25,000 employees in 2008 when they bought Bear Stearns in a fire sale. BofA's 4,200 this year is part of their overall plan to whack 30,000. How are those bitter former Lehman Brothers employees doing, by the way.

And these companies make billions in profits. Every instrument is in place to ensure they keep making billions in profits. Only the most galactic ineptitude combined with colossal hubris (see Lehman Bros.) even puts these companies in any kind of trouble.

 

Microsoft bought a failed business in Nokia.
There were going to be huge job losses one way or another.

 

JP Morgan is whacking another 17,000 But this comes after the company had added 43,000 jobs since 2009. Meaning a net gain over the past five years. They also had 260,000 jobs prior to the firings, again, meaning that they cut about 6 percent of the workforce.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/27/us-jpmorgan-jobs-idUSBRE91P0GX20130227

And unlike Gannett, they don't spin it as something exciting for their employees, or better for their customers.

 

Big banks: "$22 billion is not enough. We need more. See ya."

Baron: OK, cool.

Newspapers: "Net revenue fell for the 23rd quarter in a row. We need to cut expenses in order to keep running."

Baron: Evil corporate bastards!

 

Revenue falling is not the same as losing money.

 

They're both evil corporate bastards. The difference is that banks admit they are. Newspapers try to pretend that what they're doing is good for you.

Kinda sad that you don't see that.

 

In today's newspaper business, revenue falling means losing money faster.

 

It probably didn't mean losing money in 2007.

24+ quarters and x number of bankruptcies and/or spinoffs later, yeah, it probably does.

And IF IF IF IF a newspaper is profitable now, there is pretty much zero chance it would be profitable at the staffing levels it had in 2007. It's profitable . . . in spite of consistent revenue losses . . . BECAUSE of expense cuts that helped offset these revenue drops.

Would YOU likely not change YOUR spending habits if YOUR income fell more than 50 percent over a seven-year period? Would YOU be evil for doing so? For not using that cleaning service anymore? Getting rid of the lawn service? Pressure cleaning your house yourself instead of hiring someone?

 

Deep stuff.

I know where I'd start: I'd start by not buy the most expensive luggage in the store, dropping $200 on fancy meals, and insisting on a new sportscar every year.

But Gannett has to make sure it takes care of its do-nothing executives, which is the equivalent of splurging on all of the above.

Let's not kid ourselves. The folks who got the money damn well intend to keep it and will cut as many jobs as necessary to do so and drop a big turd of financial moralism on everybody to explain it. That's America in 2014.

 

Yours and Baron's insights into the corporate world are truly remarkable.

Baron knows exactly how banks explain layoffs to their employees (and not just the spin released to the media we can all find on Google), and you know exactly what Gannett executives do (or don't do).

Or maybe not.

"Bank of America managers spent Wednesday afternoon informing employees of the layoffs in large groups at the servicing offices in Gateway Village on West Trade Street.

“The prevailing sentiment is: ‘Be proud of the great work that you’ve done. You’ve helped us achieve a point where we’re better today than we were,’ ” Charles Bowman, Bank of America’s Charlotte market president, told the Observer. “We’re going to continue to help everybody that’s impacted make a positive transition, whether it’s in this company or if it’s outside of this company.”

Be proud! And get ready for a POSITIVE transition! It's good for you!

No, but you likely won't cut out your cable/satellite TV service and drop your mobile data service and eschew spending money on concerts and entertainment and instead send all that money to people who REALLY need it to survive.

Everybody has his/her boundaries for the lifestyle they want and the defense of that lifestyle. And "mine" are always acceptable, but "they" are always wasting money.

Rinse. Repeat.

 

While you're administering this well-deserved flogging to Baron and Alma, don't overlook their assertion that Gannett undertakes these layoffs so that its executives can spend lavishly.

 

http://gannettblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/bulletin-ceo-dubow-earned-94-million.html

<i>The bonuses were awarded partly on the basis of cost-cutting that included layoffs, unpaid furloughs and other austerity measures, the report says: "The company achieved substantial expense reductions through a variety of efforts, including continued centralization and consolidation efforts and salary freezes, positioning the company for growth as economic conditions improve."</i>

Two execs got a combined $3 million because they cut other people's jobs.

As for your "Everybody has his/her boundaries for the lifestyle they want and the defense of that lifestyle..." yeah, no shit. I get that.

And, oddly enough, Gannett's most recent changes in terms of content focus may actually help. USA Today is better paper now that it was five years ago, especially in sports, where it had been growing mold until a recent overhaul. And I am <i>not</i> the guy who equates newspaper jobs to Supreme Court appointments. I'm fine with competition, efficiency, moving more to a digital reality.

But for a good decade, Gannett was and has been a shitshow. The talented journalists -- some of whom have been laid off, many -- were all that was keeping that product a quality one. I've seen great papers, that - worthy of envy - take uppercuts to its quality over not much more than execs practicing "busyness" for the sake of it.