We appreciate the feedback on how to cover D-day. We have decided to report only total numbers of losses by department and by job classification. That helps us understand the general approach taken by leadership.
Be assured we will not include anyone's name or other identifying information, such as a specific job title or specific beat covered. That will stay in-house. We will delete any comments that breach this.
Employees who want to use this blog to send a farewell message to friends or distribute contact information may contact us directly.
UPDATED FRIDAY: The Providence newspaper union posted a list of laid-off employees, with names and titles, on its Web site.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A blog for The People of the Dallas Morning News to share information about a career-altering event that they had no control to stop.
Management wants to trim roughly 20-30 jobs through attrition by next June. What are the chances?
Why are we here?
Because it is honorable to recognize the individuals who toiled in the fields, doing their part to make the Dallas Morning News as good a product as it could be. But due to financial forces beyond their control, they were made a "voluntary severance offer." Had that been in copy, an editor would have changed that to read "buyout."
Continue reading.
Buyout class of '08
- Abrams, Kerri: page designer/F!D Luxe and Looks, news art
- Anderson, Karin Shaw: reporter, metro
- Beauchamp, Jenni: news assistant, metro
- Becker, Stephen: assistant editor, arts
- Black, James: graphics editor, news art
- Daniel, Mike: writer/copy editor, arts
- Dugger, Jason: design editor/sports, news art
- Dunklin, Mary: Healthy Living editor, lifestyles
- Eckberg, Jon: paginator/copy editor, sports
- Fox, Laurie: reporter, metro
- Hawkins, Amy: office manager, state
- Jau, Mei-Chun: senior video producer/editor.
- Kelly, Terry: senior assistant news editor, news desk
- Leeson, David: photographer, videographer
- Marta, Suzanne: reporter, business
- McLemore, David: reporter, state
- Miller, Jeff: assistant editor, sports
- Moore, Joel: page designer/copy editor, sports
- Pinson, Travis: copy editor/paginator, Quick
- Pruitt, Richard Michael: photographer, photo
- Schlegel, Erich: photographer, Austin bureau.
- Velez, Chris: paginator/copy editor, Quick
Jobs openings
Job boards
Employment issues
Library
E-mail us
- therockoftruth@gmail.com
- (Sharing reliable information keeps everyone informed during this time of uncertainty. The Rock will not release your name or job title, or quote directly from your e-mail unless you give permission first. This applies to tenured managers, new employees and part-time clerks alike.)
15 comments:
Even if we share information on numbers from each of our departments, how specific should we be regarding department and position? Should we just report "newsroom" or "lifestyles" or should we indicate "education team editor," for example? On the one hand, it helps all of us to know which departments and positions are being cut to get a sense of direction going forward. On the other hand, it makes it easier to identify individuals, who may not want to be ID'd.
It drives reporters crazy when other entities avoid naming names and tip-toe around the obvious - so why should we do it, too?
The only people who care whether a specific individual is laid off will already know it. Empty desks, names removed from lists, bylines suddenly disappearing - it's going to be apparent who made the cut and who didn't. The embarrassment and shame is on the company - not the people who will be getting terminated.
If I get cut, I want the whole world to know it. It might help me get another job. I'm proud enough of my work that I think my dismissal would send a signal of just how bad things really are. Everyone should feel that way.
Talented people are going to lose their jobs, just like the last layoffs. In fact, it's probably going to be worse because it's a smaller staff to trim from. This isn't a "trim the fat" process - it's trim to the bone, and even the marrow in some cases.
That said (heavy sigh)...I don't think this blog should list names unless those individuals grant permission. However, to tap dance around which departments and positions were eliminated is just silly. And hypocritical.
There will be nothing fair about what is to come. Those who are let go have nothing to be ashamed of. These are the folks who want to stick around despite the lean times at the paper and are to be commended for their devotion and talent.
Yet you sign on as "anonymous." I'd say we're being sensitive, not hypocritical.
What good does it do to find this out? What will you learn about the company's direction from whom it lays off?
The company's direction is reduction. It's not about the products or the audience. Eliminating six from lifestyles or six from sports or whatever won't have much to do about what the company is focusing on. It's about who they can get rid of, not what it does for the future.
A little insight:
Some of the people laid off in 2004 are still smarting from the experience. Some are so hurt that they cut off contact with colleagues they had known for years. To this day, they don't want their names known. They have the right to have these feelings. One can't understand the deep sense of hurt they feel until it happens to you. Regardless of what haters say about journalists, our work matters a lot to us. Being told your services are no longer needed is a very bitter pill for true believers. It's not hypocritical to respect the privacy of those who are about to lose their jobs to satisfy today's corporate agenda. A lot more of us could be joining them if things continue down the same path.
I think the discussion here reflects a sense of responsibility. We rarely, if ever, reveal the names of employees involved in layoffs. For one thing, we'd be needing lots of extra manpower and space to list the names of 1,500 employees cut by an airline or a software company. Secondly, we're trying find the right balance between "No news," which is what management wants, and anything goes. I don't think that's hypocritical. I think that's responsible.
I signed on as anonymous because I still have a job to protect, just like everyone else here. That's when sensitivity is needed, not when I'm laid off and have nothing to lose.
OK, maybe hypocritical is too strong a word. And I know I'm being insensitive about this - I'll probably go into a shell, too, when it happens to me. But I just feel that we're in the truth business. The truth often hurts, but it usually serves a greater good. By being so guarded, we're aiding management's goal of making this happen as quietly as possible.
There's a difference between being laid off and being fired. This isn't about individual performance or someone's services no longer being needed - we NEED everyone!
I have no doubt that the names of those who are let go will be revealed, even if it's not recorded on this blog. The news will travel like wildfire, just like it did in 2004. Those who don't want to be identified in print or on the web are going to be identified anyway through newsroom gossip. And if not that, then by their absence.
I'd like to think that being up front and completely open about this process may help remove the shame some people apparently feel about being laid off. They shouldn't feel shame or rejection, but some will no matter what we say - or what management says, which will be nothing.
Again, I don't propose anyone list names. But I do think we can go so far as department, and maybe even more specific short of spelling out someone's name. There needs to be some accounting, somewhere, of the tragedy that is about to take place. Otherwise only management will decide how history is recorded.
In 2004, the sports editor read off a list of the layoffees. Did that not happen elsewhere in the building?
Wow! Sports let you know who was let go in 2004? No, that did NOT happen elsewhere in the building. As others have said, the news traveled merely by way of the grapevine.
Yep, and then one smartass said he didn't hear all the names so the editor would have to read the whole list over again.
Regarding cutbacks OTHER THAN staff, such as news hole: I've noticed that the daily newspaper has held steady at 64 pages. In contrast, I noticed a few days ago that Brand X over in Fort Worth was 50 pages -- 25 percent less, if my math's correct. Not sure if there's really anything positive in that news, however, since all papers (including ours) across the country have been shrinking their news hole for years. Anybody have any idea of the current size of the newsroom at the Startlegram?
Don't mean to get poetic, but I'm having to sit here and watch good souls dimming all around me. My heart goes out to these particular folks. They've been loyal, honest, terribly hard working, and even right now they're filled with the same conviction that called them to this field in the first place.
I've never witnessed a more ludicrous workload than what these folks have been forced to shoulder just to (maybe) keep their job. And because they're professionals of the highest caliber, they bow up and give 150 percent as opposed to the 125 percent they were giving before. All so they can put out a newspaper that's better than should be humanly possible under the current conditions. Decherd, Moroney, et al. have no idea how lucky they are to be over this paper. Too bad they're breaking it like spoiled little boys who play with valuable toys they're too clueless to appreciate.
Regarding the size of the S-T newsroom: after buyouts and layoffs, it's less than 200 now.
The Providence Guild published and circulated in the building a list of the 31 laid off, minus the names of five who chose not to be identified. Its effect is devastating -- it's like a list of the victims of a disaster, all of whom we know.
Added to the 22 who took the buyout last month, this is very close to the high-end job-reduction number of 54 mentioned at the beginning of all this.
My suggestion: Give out none of those details unless the person RIF-ed so chooses. As has been noted elsewhere, getting one's name out is a Good Thing in terms of finding more employment. And some or many of those who lose jobs may want every bit of free pub possible.
Post a Comment