Journal employees face 6% pay cut
Don @ IdahoRadioNews | April 2, 2009
Journal Communications announced it will cut salaries for all non-union employees by six percent.
“There is a high probability that this environment will continue for at least the balance of 2009,” CEO Steven Smith said in a letter intercepted by the AP. “As we manage for the long-term success of the company, we must identify constructive ways to continue to reduce costs.”
But to somewhat soften the blow of the six percent cut, JC will give all employees an extra ten days off this year. Those days will technically be paid, albeit at the lower pay rate. Ten days works out to be about 4% of total work days – so it’s not an even trade… but it certainly isn’t nothing.
Journal says it hopes to restore pay in 2010. Shares jumped almost 60% on the news.
JBG is now the third Boise groups to cut salaries. In February, Citadel cut pay by 5% and Peak made a 10% cut.
Isn’t that nice, the shareholders get a 60% boost, but it come on the backs of the actual workers who have to take pay cuts. Screw the shareholders! Take care of the damned workers who actually provide the product. Even after all the greed we’ve seen from Wall Street, Journal still doesn’t get it.
“Screw the shareholders! Take care of the damned workers who actually provide the product.”
That’s Commie talk, Comrade. Next, you’ll be advocating union membership. What has American come to?
Ebo, get off your lazy butt and go BUY a radio station (or any business for that matter). Then you are perfectly free to GIVE your personal property to your employees if you like! Buy a controlling interest in Journal or any other company and give it a shot. Oh. You don’t have the money? Ask the new Czar. He’s got plenty to hand out. Thanks “The” for the observation… Buy
Hey, Jim, you should ask Journal if you can speak to a meeting of their employees. I’m sure they’d take well to your free market economics rallying cry.
Yeah, screw the workers! It’s not like they contribute anything to the success of a business. It’s all about the stock price, Baby!
Look. I took a pay cut. While it is not good long term practice I had my witholding changed to pick back up about half and we have tightened up personal expenses. I’ll deal with the tax issue later. The point is, it is better to work then not and most of us recognize that a company exists for one reason. To make a profit and right now to just survive. Bash the companies all you want the reality is we need each other at the end of the day.
Good heaven’s “The”, what side of the fence are you on??? Have some syrup with that waffle.
Workers choose where they work and they choose the terms of that employment. We are not in an environment where you are “ordered” to take a certain profession or employer! In this country you are not force-fed your employment. If the terms change, you can accept them or reject them. You are free to go and find another job.
Watch the news. I am in the same boat as the private sector facing pay reductions. I accept that as a term of my employment. I am human capital, just like the other capital such as inventory, overhead, etc… Which do you choose? a 5% across the board or 5% overall? If the latter, then who goes? In my own businesses, I make the decisions! Period. I put up the $$$, I take the risk and I make the decisions. My employees aren’t beholding to the bank, I am. I reward my employees well when they produce and business is good. When there is no production, I reduce in order to keep MY investment alive. There. There’s my speech. At least for the time being, an opinion I’m free to have.
So all the stockholders should dump Journal stock right? If you don’t have them around your neck everything will be peachy, right?
Jim Smith said:
“Good heaven’s “The”, what side of the fence are you on??? Have some syrup with that waffle.”
Jim, allow me to introduce you to a little concept I like to call “irony.” As an example, I direct you to my original comment.
“Workers choose where they work and they choose the terms of that employment. We are not in an environment where you are “ordered” to take a certain profession or employer! In this country you are not force-fed your employment.”
So, what’s wrong with negotiating with your employer using collective bargaining? The owners have the power of the checkbook and the workers, operating as a unit, have the power of the strike. Seems like a level playing field to me. Why should one side have all the power?
<— You’re preaching to the choir. I’m a member of IBEW since 1984 and AFTRA since 1989.
The value of the human capital is negotiable just like any other operating asset of a company. Whether collectively or individually, it is negotiable. I will pay the price for a transmitter or a morning show that is within my operating budget. If operating capital diminishes, it’s time to renegotiate. Likewise, a good PSC or collective agreement carries language that pays more when times (ratings) are good. When I get a call for voice work, I tell them “this is how much it is…” If they don’t like the price, they are free to go to someone else. I am also able to negotiate a lower price. After all, some work is better than none these days. Unions aren’t communist, they are a means for “talent” to consolodate a bunch of “smaller businessess” into one with more bargaining power to sell their product for the best price possible. The employer also has the right to negotiate, hire a whole new staff or close his doors.
Yes, it sounds very nice that an employer can view themselves as a business, and employees can too. Ideally, if employers and employees each acted as professionals there would be no hard feelings when either side establishes a price and chooses to NOT do business with the other.
However, there’s a tremendous double standard. You may have an at-will contract that says employer or employee may terminate the relationship in an instant.
If the employer lays off people, it is viewed as a sound business decision. Never mind if the employees are affected with major inconveniences.
If the employee quits, he is viewed as extremely immature, that he left his employer in a lurch and he is the bad guy. Worse, the employee will very likely receive poor or bad references.
One thing I am glad is reading it’s a 6% pay cut and not 100%. But don’t for a minute think that the employer/employee relationship is equal. Ask yourself how many people would work if they didn’t have to. Ask yourself how many employers discard perfectly capable people to just save a few bucks in a quarter, never to realize the cost in human capital, morale, and priceless forms of knowledge.