Gannett strikes again

You must not understand grammar very well. He didn't say that the layoff itself is a positive transition. He said "make it a positive transition". What he's saying is the company is going to try to help their laid-off employees find a better position or improve their life than what they had. A better position is a positive thing, doncha think?

That could mean any number of ways. Some companies have job-placement assistance, or offer to pay for classes. Bank of America, meanwhile, gave laid off employees two months pay on top of a severance package.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-13/bank-of-america-said-to-cut-450-more-mortgage-jobs.html

Compare that with Gannett, which, with their layoffs from a few years ago, only offered supplemental pay on top of unemployment. And some states wouldn't allow unemployment if workers were receiving money from other sources, so they didn't even get the supplemental pay.

 

Fixed that for you.

 

Well said.

If you have to do it, do it in a way that treats your employees (and your customers!) with some degree of respect and dignity.

I've been on both ends, and I've seen it done both ways. It sucks, but I'm a grownup. Treat me like one.

 

Why don't you show him how it's done.

 

Our former editor in South Florida said the same thing to us before the first dominoes fell in 2008. I don't know of any help that Tribune provided to any laid-off employee.

BofA closed 42 branches in the third quarter alone. It opened . . . one. Do you really think the employees at those 42 branches were helped to find "better" (higher paying!) jobs within the company? Seriously?

Funny how you buy the nonsense that the BofA spokesman spouts, but it's corporate bullshit when a media company spokesman spouts it.

Hint: It's all corporate bullshit. Said that YOU can't see the difference.

 

Again, from the quote that you provided:

Understand now?

And as I pointed out, B of A gave their employees two months pay, AND their severance. Not one or the other. Not "if you collect unemployment, we'll give you an extra few hundred dollars per week for however many weeks you worked here."

Here's one from Turner Broadcasting for buyouts. And yes, their suit also gave a line of bullshit about "streamlined and nimble." BUT, they offered nine weeks pay plus four weeks of severance for each year that the employee was there. In other words a 10-year employee (the minimum) gets paid for nearly a year for sitting at home.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/26/news/companies/turner/?iid=EL

Compare that, again with Gannett. Sounds like the other companies, bullshit or not, actually try to make the layoff/buyout much less painful. And they don't spin it like it's good for the employees.

 

Baron, you need counseling to deal with your Gannett PTSD.

Seriously ... You're citing banks as the paragon of virtue.

 

Actually, BTE brought them up first. And I'm not the one who revived this thread. We all were asked by Matt about why there was such annoyance towards Gannett. I gave my response.

And I've already said that banks are just as greedy and soulless as newspapers, but I give them credit for at least not pretending that their actions will be good for their employees.

 

All I know is, it's pretty sad to try to drum the idealism out of a young person. Whether you're jaded or not.

If he wants to put a good face on his situation, nobody here has the right to point and snicker.

 

I don't think there is snickering. There is pragmatism. There is advance warning.
And they don't care how much passion you have, so that's baloney.

 

Meanwhile, a buddy's brother was just promoted to a partner position at Goldman-Sachs.

His base pay is now $1.1 million. Factoring in bonuses from his deals, and he's expecting to take home $12million + in the next 12 months.

And he's one of 76 people at his level in the company.

I'm sorry, but there is just no way an economy can thrive for long when the economic realities faced by so many people are so out of balance.

 

There is no system in which the economic realities are not grossly out of balance.

But I do enjoy Baron's grade-school Marxism. Always enjoyable.