Surprise, surprise. Neither management nor HR is sharing names or numbers of buyout-takers. Only six people notified Mr. Sunbeam of their intention to take the buyout, and one rescinded. Therefore, Mr. Sunbeam's information is both unofficial and likely incomplete. Few names are being used because most folks have not authorized release of their names.
From Photo: four photographers
From News Art: three artists
From Business News: one reporter
From Local News: three reporters, two clerks
From Arts/Lifestyles: one reporter and four editors
From Sports: one assigning editor, 3 copy editors, one page designer
From Editorial: no takers
From Enterprise/Projects: no takers
From News Desk/Universal Desk: one news editor
From Quick: 4 staffers (no breakdown by position; does not figure in DMN count)
Yes, Mr. Sunbeam realizes this is only 24 people. There was reportedly some movement on the final day, both people rescinding and putting in. There are reports that some people tried to opt in after the deadline. Don't know how that will play out. HR has been adamant in meetings and messages that the deadline was immovable. Company policy, they said.
There is no official word when HR will announce the next move. The list of buyout-takers will have to be reviewed and approved by who knows how many suits. Management has previously said things will be finalized the first week of September. But that was before they knew they would fall far short of achieving the stated 40-person buyout target. The last time there was a layoff, you will recall, there wasn't a lot of official word before the event occurred.
Everybody is a name, as far as Mr. Sunbeam is concerned. Some names are better known. One of those who took the buyout is one of those. He is a Pulitzer Prize winner. He has not authorized release of his name, so Mr. Sunbeam won't disclose it until he gets the okay.
Biggest surprise of the departmental meetings: Local News going from two deputy managing editors to one. This was the only reported reduction in newsroom managment, which currently numbers 12 for a staff that is soon to be at most 350 people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
steve: appreciate the info, but do you feel it's appropriate -- or very nice -- to speculate on the fate of good people based on your view of who "was acting a whole lot happier" wednesday? if that were solid science for divining job security ... well, i won't even go there.
I don't think it's inappropriate. It's certainly been noticed in the newsroom and the blog didn't take a pot-shot, just made an observation, like many folks are doing in this uncertain time.
It's probably likely that this DME will be re-assigned rather than let go completely, which is a better parachute than many of our colleagues will have. If not, I'd stand corrected: they're looking for an overall salary number after all.
It would only stand to reason that those who have been steering the ship be held responsible for it taking on water, not just the regular journalists.
It's unfortunate because I believe a lot of our managers fought for their respective departments during this ordeal, but when all of the dust settles, the glass offices, if they remain untouched completely, well, the newsroom's morale can't take yet another hit like that.
If we truly are one team, then the coaches have to pay for the losses as much as the celebrate the wins.
Jim: One of the two DMEs has been quoted as telling a staffer that their job would change, as in still employed but in a new role, and the other appeared in better spirits. So this was not wild speculation. If you know the author's name, then you probably also heard this information in the newsroom prior to reading it here. The author was merely, you know, reporting.
Because we have received such little information, this blog fills the vacuum. Its author does a good job of playing it down the middle. Outing people as buyout takers without their permission would be poor form, but that's not what is happening here.
So, until you choose to "go there," your beef remains unclear. We're listening.
Death: Good points. Stay in journalism.
Add a sports producer for the Web to your list who expect to get the buyout and without hard feelings. Hopefully, this can help at least one more talented person keep their job.
As to the DME and the possibility that he/she will be reassigned:
What a travesty that would make of this process. Management has stated flat-out that shuffling people around to keep certain individuals would be legally suspect. Making an exception for one high-level person would destroy the shred of credibility management has left, torpedo newsroom morale (the shred of that that's left), and who knows what else.
Who knows how it will all shake out here in a few weeks, but George was saying that 350 was an optimistic staffing number given the economic climate.
A lot of people are worried that this means we'll get knocked down to 300. Let's split the difference and say "salary-range" and FTE count is met at 325. We'll be losing a good chunk of our newsroom. We would be at 350.
The underlying sentiment in the newsroom from the rank-and-file is what some above just touched on: If we're losing so much, why is management even broaching issues they termed "legally suspect" in our meetings with an upper manager?
One reporter nailed it Friday morning: "If a (upper manager) were to take the fall, he/she would have someone whispering in their ear to take the buyout."
Realizing there is a different set of rules even in the best of times, one has to wonder if management will read this blog or listen to the sentiment in the newsroom in the coming weeks.
We're giving up a lot. How about you giving up a little, as a minor show of good faith? Remember, salary has been a big issue here, too. We kept being told if only 40 clerks took the buyout, we'd still need layoffs because our salary scale wouldn't meet requirements set by corporate.
That would make the "we remain committed to being a quality paper" argument a tad easier to swallow as we watch our colleagues shown the door.
Thin out the top a little bit. This ship's going to capsize when we get to our final newsroom number from the top-heavy nature of our management structure.
Having a large management team is a luxury. These aren't luxurious times, according to you. Prove it.
Exactly. Do we really need any deputy managing editors? And let's look higher up in the food chain while we're at it.
IJS.
No offense intended. Posting has been amended.
Post a Comment