Word out of the Flint Journal is a veteran advertising representative was fired and not offered a buyout or severance in the past week.
The employee, who was encouraged NOT to take last year's buyout and stay, has reportedly a better sales record than those who were spared. The employee was transferred out of the display advertising section and moved into the classified arena, which is not particularly lucrative at this time in newspaper history.
There is also word of a similar firing out of Saginaw. So it appears the attrition needed by the company will not all come with a parting buyout or severance check.
The source who provided this information said it may be the company is seeking any excuse to lighten its load without paying the price. That's two Flint Journal employees fired in a month, which is almost unheard of in its history.
As I receive more information on this and other employment actions, I'll post it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
A quick question, was the employee fired or just transferred or was the person fired after refusing a transfer. I'm confused about how it's worded. Could you clarify? Thanks. And that's for all your reporting. People do appreciate it.
Word is fired. I'm waiting for additional information on whether the firing was for cause or refusing a transfer elsewhere.
Sorry for the sketchy info and as soon as I know more, I'll put it up.
I have to believe that accountability has risen at these papers and if individuals are not performing to their ability in the advertising or news departments that they will let go accordingly. The same probably goes for your pal in the news department a few weeks ago. This company is not known for letting people go for no reason...I really think you should wait until you have more than "sketchy info" to publish information.
Dear anonymous (5:51):
You will note that I didn't editorialize on the reasons. I don't know the reasons, they may have cause, but clearly you are correct there is little room for error (unless you are a top boss) for any employee in these tight days.
This employee may well have deserved to be fired (I know many of the years - including now - who should have been fired but who have found unwarranted favor with the Booth bosses).
Since you seem to have some information on this case, please enlighten all of us.
I would warn anyone there to mind their p's and q's as the head hunters are seeking any reason to lop off a peasant's head and save a few bucks.
My information is that this employee was performing at or above the average for his position, so if it was for cause it had to be something other than job performance.
Just sayin'
"This company is not known for letting people go for no reason ..."
That was the old Booth, not the new Booth. Unlike that phrase in the famous song by The Who, the new boss is NOT the same as the old boss.
If the Newhouse gang has decided to implement accountability, it's intriguing that of the eight Michigan Booth papers, I haven't heard of a single editor-in-chief or publisher who has lost his/her job as a result of faltering revenues and circulation. At some point, don't the leaders need to be held accountable for the health of the business? Just askin'.
My point exactly Inky.
Right on, inky.
I can shed a bit of light on this, as I'm very close to it.
1) This person was not asked to transfer.
2) This person made goal more frequently than any other in that department. I'm not saying he was a superstar, but he was doing the job he was hired for, and doing it well -- selling.
3) This person didn't have any history of disciplinary problems. Nice, cooperative... maybe slightly opinionated. I'd say 99% of his clients liked him, and he had some big ones. He brought in some pretty big clients.
4) If you've ever been a customer service rep, you probably know "the game": things get bad financially for the customer, he doesn't want to pay for his advertising, he complains to the rep, rep says it's policy, then he complains to the boss about the rep. This is a REGULAR occurence in sales at the Flint Journal; nearly everyone has had a customer complain about not getting enough attention. This was the reason stated for this person's termination.
5) The complaining customers are NOT major advertisers -- probably worth less than a few hundred dollars a year, and they accounted for less than .01% (yes, a hundredth of a percent) of his total revenue responsibilities.
6) The new ad director has been in place for about 2 1/2 years now; his direct boss has been in place for, if I recall correctly, a bit more than a year. I would suggest to you that this is an interpersonal problem rather than a performance one. My speculation is that management demanded a reduction somewhere and these managers were forced to choose -- and they chose the guy they don't like. But that's just my two cents. Also, hmmm, how mysterious, they're not replacing this person.
7) This is part of a larger pattern. Lots of people are finding themselves "in trouble" where they never have been before, all people who are working very hard. It's nitpicky stuff, and I agree with another poster I've seen here who suggests that it's groundwork being laid to be rid of anyone for anything at any time. Example: one employee was reprimanded for taking a day off for grandma's funeral; another was reprimanded for taking too much time off after a miscarriage. I couldn't make this stuff up. It also seems they've abandoned the sort of 3 strike policy. They're trying to get back to being purely "at will", it seems.
8) Another good point, inky -- you don't see anyone in management taking these hits. I don't know why, because I see a lot of waste at that level. I would suggest that this person's boss -- who sells nothing and pulls in a much larger salary -- would have been a better choice.
I think it's mission accomplished. People are frightened, and everything feels arbitrary. You can't tell what might end you up in hot water.
Lack of severance doesn't surprise me. Years ago, I worked at a newspaper, gave a 2-week notice to take another job when the newspaper job was getting phased out and then was rehired at another paper in the company when the job didn't work out. A few years later, I was "let go" due to unspecified people making unspecified claims about me. My severance? One day's pay. No advanced warning that my job was in jeopardy.
Based on what I've seen of the paper's coverage lately, looks like I might be getting the last laugh.
This is fascinating and extremely sad. Whoever had the "new" Booth line was correct. It's not your father's Booth. I do know, too, that advertising bars, at least at some papers, are being set impossibly high in this economy. If you want to get rid of someone based on revenue expectations, that's the way to do it.
Sad stuff. I know some papers, at least, have set the bar for advertising revenue goals impossibly high for next year (not too hard in this economy). That's where the "performance" line comes from in the job guarantee.
If you want to know how really bad it is in FJ advertising, ask someone about the padlock on the refrigerator up there. Ha! Apparently someone once ate an unauthorized kebab. Without proof or any sort of logic, the ad director blamed the custodial staff. As an aside, they've been around for years and I've never had even a penny come up missing.
You're right, you can't make it up it's so ridiculous. And the list is long.
I would like to thank you for this site, it helps me feel like I'm not crazy.
"I would like to thank you for this site, it helps me feel like I'm not crazy."
LOL!
I don't feel like I'm crazy, but the whole thing is depressing.
It is my understanding that the Journal is a desperate, hand to mouth company. Their strategy, or lack of one, was to bring in a couple of outsiders who have instilled a culture of control. Ironically, there is no control from these freaks, but there is tyranny.
The paper has become a dysfunctional family where group think dominates and those who disagree are systemically eliminated, their severed heads paraded down the aisle as an example for those who choose discourse on issues.
People who accepted the en masse buyout last winter tell me they could collectively swell the ranks of Mensa, their former employer being a vampire of intellect. Certainly, the veteran salesperson that was canned was nothing more than an economic casualty, victim of an organization where the lunatics have taken over the asylum. Why would Journal management cut loose a top performer when ad revenues, especially in Classified are down over 30%? What I have heard from my sources is this representative hit his goal more than anyone in his department over the last two plus years. Cutting off their nose to spite their face I guess.
Or, when you have a collective promoted to their level of incompetence you have chaos run amok. Apparently it is more important to conduct meetings where salespeople terrified of losing their jobs are like trained seals, clapping mindlessly while feigning success stories. Up is down, black is white, the best and brightest are hung out to dry, and those in power CYA. And the page count in the paper shrinks faster than glaciers, shortchanging readers and advertisers. A recipe for doom, with little yield for a cash famished company.
de minimis:
Tell us how you really feel.
Remember, the opinions of the commenters are not necessarily those of the owner of the blog.
But I do love passion.
Post a Comment