Ex-Stribber wanted to know why, if there are now two of us blogging, why there aren’t daily posts. As mentioned previously, my colleague Mr. Lambert is off kayaking in the wilds of Utah and is blameless. I was first out of town and am now deluged with out-of-town guests who want to see every piece of art the TC have to offer. So….haven’t been making a lot of calls. Fortunately, one of our correspondents had his ear to the ground and sent in this tidbit. I have no reason to doubt this post, as I was one of the folks who was told of her “reassignment” within days of the buyout deadline. Course, then they denied my buyout, but that’s a whole different story.
Read and discuss….
The Star Tribune Guild convened a 10:30 meeting this morning to look at a pattern of age discrimination in the reassignments cooked up by editors for the paper’s owner, Avista Capital Partners. Speaking on background, one Guild officer said that by their count “only three or four” of the [30-40] reporters told they are being reassigned, “are under the age of 35”.
It is generally considered “paranoid” or “cynical” to read individualized, strategic intent in these reassignment frenzies. But when, as the same Guild source points out, the percentage of reassignees is so heavily skewed to older writers AND they are notified of their reassignment only days/hours before they have to decide to accept a buy-out and leave the paper, you really aren’t left with many credible explanations other than that this is the latest exercise in the tried-and-true corporate “right-sizing” template of — let’s describe it the way it smells — — insulting/threatening a veteran reporter with a switch to a beat usually covered by a summer intern, if at all.
There are specific examples all over the place, but when you get to Neal Gendler, a 60-something with 40 years at the paper being reassigned to overnights from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., you’re not even getting points for subtlety. In other words, police chase and flaming wreck with shoot out at 3 AM … Gendler’s your man.)
The Guild also has a problem with the peculiar sequencing of the reassignment/buy-out deadline process devised by the Star Tribune. As I asked/wrote yesterday, how else can you explain managing editors spending so much time re-mapping their employee universe BEFORE knowing for certain who they would have to work with, other than as a not too subtle and yes, fairly cynical process for “encouraging” those they most want out of the building to pack up and go?
It may be technically legal, but it runs contrary to the spirit of journalism, where your agendas, if you have them, are supposed to be plainly disclosed.
Whether the Guild alone can get any traction on the age discrimination issue remains to be seen. I happen to believe they should pursue aggressive outside counsel if only to squeeze Avista for a fatter, longer-term health benefits package. But that’s me and it wouldn’t be my money.
Leave a Reply Cancel reply