The list is at the bottom of the document, on page 15, after a long, long bunch of legalese, and is accompanied by another list of the ages and job titles of everybody who is still left at the paper. Thank goodness that list still takes up several pages.
Being a nosy sort, the Retch examined the departing pool of employees. This was not a particularly easy thing to do, so not much was done, frankly. For what it's worth, the average age of fired or bought out workers was 50. The average age of remaining LA Times workers is 46.
Reporters appear to be the hardest hit among editorial employees. Thirty nine people classified as reporters or bureau chiefs left, about 30% of the total. Among those reporters, more than 80% were classified as "Level III" -- generally the most experienced, best-sourced journalists. Next came editors, then copy editors. Graph below.
The takeaway message is not too difficult: Sam Zell's firings have deprived the paper of some of its best journalists, those who know the community, know the players, can challenge bullshit because they've seen it all go down.
That's not to say that young reporters are not good. It's just that in all things, experience counts. But not enough to matter to Zell.
UPDATE: This from a fellow Retch, who has studied the data even more closely:
From the data:Full document follows
If you were a reporter, the older you were the more likely you were to be laid off.
4 percent of the reporters under 30 were terminated (1 of 24)
10 percent of the reporters under 40 were terminated (7 of 68)
14 percent of reporters over 40 were terminated (28 of 194)
21 percent of reporters over 50 were terminated (19 of 90)
In other words, you were five times more likely to be laid off if you were 55 than you were if you were 25
17 comments:
The Weather Page Editor got laid off? OH THE HUMANITY! WILL NEWSPAPERS SURVIVE?
Weather pages are exactly the kind of thing papers should have quit doing ten years ago. No. Twenty.
At least someone is thinking ahead, and not just whining.
Retch,
With all due respect, I don't think you can say reporters appear to be the hardest hit just because they represent the largest share of the people who were laid off. The LAT also employs many more reporters than copy editors, just to give an example. Likewise, designers may only represent 11.7% of the layoffs but way more than 11.7% of the design staff was laid off. I think it was actually closer to a third... Just sayin'. To really show which departments have been the hardest hit, you need to compare total before and after numbers for each department.
You forgot the other half of the data in your pie chart. What percent of the Editorial staff was Reporter? What percent were Admin? And how many of the Level III Reporters who left did so voluntarily and how many were asked to go?
This is meaningless data. I hope your editors wouldn't let you get away with this pile of nothing.
Retch:
I'm finding pages 12-22 are blanked out and come up as solid red. Do you need to upload again?
Those well sourced old-timers did a really good job with the John Edwards scandal. Either they sat at their desks all day planning lunch or they purposely withheld the story. Either way, these "well sourced" employees should be fired.
Go Sam Go!!!!
The death of the 'gatekeeper' media cannot come soon enough.
Bias = Layoffs
It's hard to draw any meaning from these numbers without controlling for things like voluntary vs. involuntary -- there were volunteers among the missing, and we have no way of knowing how that skewed, age-wise.
Also, what about performance? Are we assuming older = more talented? Harder working? Does a more experienced worker always carry more of the load than a younger one? I would argue that although those things might be true, they aren't a given.
Dangerous to establish a clear takeaway message when mining unclear data.
Something marginally related, to ponder: At many workplaces, 46 is not considered "young."
... 21 percent of reporters over 50 were terminated (19 of 90)
In other words, you were five times more likely to be laid off if you were 55 than you were if you were 25 ...
No, in other words, If you were 55+, you more likely to be able to -voluntarily- resign.
Bogus data interpretation.
Layoffs and Buyouts != Firing...
Perhaps 'Involuntary Layoffs' would be more useful data to represent.
What struck me about the pie chart is this: if you add up Editor, copy editor and designer categories, you get 40.9 percent of the layoffs coming from the pool of editors. Ouch.
Thank you, Retch. These numbers shed light on one of the ugliest aspects of last month's bloodbath. Many of us on the second and third floors can attest that most cuts were firings, hitting hardest at the most senior and seasoned (read oldest) Times newsroom staff.
I hope you and your correspondents will keep crunching the numbers and do research in your own departments. Look hard at problem sections. We all know how this came down.
Remember that if fired employees are to get their buyout money, they must sign waivers by the middle of September, promising not to sue.
Maybe, just maybe, you may strike enough fear in the hearts of the glass office dwellers that they will fight harder during the next round to save our jobs. But don't count on it.
Thanks for doing this Retch.
If you ask the average reader what a newspaper is comprised of, they'd say reporters, photographers, editors, copy editors, and recently designers.
I find it interesting that there are constant ads on job sites for the advertising department but none for the jobs named above.
As an intern at the Tribune company, I am extremely worried that there will be no way to further myself in this company.
I am by no means a yes-woman, and although not contrarian, I stand up for what I believe. That used to be an admiral quality. Nowadays editors seem to see it as pugilist.
I need some inspiration.
Desperately.
Shirttail on Mark Spitz story:
Frank Litsky has covered swimming for The Times for 50 years.
Better keep your head down, Frank.
Oops, that's the other Times.
Just because Tribune forces you to sign a waiver promising not to sue, does not automatically mean that waiver will hold up in court. (I've done a little research in this area.) If you feel your rights as a worker have been violated, under the federal Age Discrimination Act, you should talk about your particular circumstances with an attorney familiar with employee law in California.
"Those well sourced old-timers did a really good job with the John Edwards scandal. Either they sat at their desks all day planning lunch or they purposely withheld the story. Either way, these "well sourced" employees should be fired.
Go Sam Go!!!!"
Hey, dumbfuck, do you not understand that there are news executives, aka assistant managing editors and the managing editor who decided to sit on that story? NO? Well, I guess then we can chalk up your comment to the kind of ignorance now in charge at the Times.
Go back to watching Fox so your brilliant opinions can be reinforced by their "balanced reporting."
"Anonymous said...
The Weather Page Editor got laid off? OH THE HUMANITY! WILL NEWSPAPERS SURVIVE?
Weather pages are exactly the kind of thing papers should have quit doing ten years ago. No. Twenty.
At least someone is thinking ahead, and not just whining."
You're assuming a lot there. I've never thought much of the post-USA Today weather page orgasm most papers undertook. Most of them blew a color page on them that could have been used for more important things. One paper I worked for in the '80s did a color weather page. Production included hand cutting rubylith on as many as a dozen sheets of acetate to construct the nationwide temperatures. What a waste, but for some reason, not having the weather in the paper pisses people off.
Of course, cutting features always pisses people off, but the Times brain trust did that this time around with abandon. It doesn't just mean cutting them from print, it means most of them aren't online either.
That'll get readers to visit the site. *roll eyes*
Post a Comment