Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 2:30 AM
Mon Nov 30
13 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
07/16/09
07/16/09
This company could not be more short-sighted in its firings and, worst of all, they're now trying to screw her out of health insurance. (Apparently, "in perpetuity" is now subject to interpretation).
Basically, it boils down to this: From what I understand, they merged two of their educational divisions together, in the process creating what the British might call redundancies. So firings were apparently in order.
Which sounds like a company trimming the fat, right? The problem is twofold:
1. They waited to fire the people they fired until after a grueling project on Texas textbooks, which required my mother to work from 6 a.m. until midnight most nights. Three days later she was canned. Glad to see people taking cues from Newsweek, apparently
2. While the firings may look good on paper, they result in some of the most incompetent people being kept on, simply because they have a unique title.
And now, even though they specifically said that, once an employee has reached 10 years, they have insurance w/the company “in perpetuity,” there now claiming that my mother misunderstood the terms of the contract. As I said before, the concept of “forever” is now apparently a vague one.
Another thing: once the Market recovers (which admittedly might not be for a while), McGraw will absolutely not have the talent/workforce to make the technological innovations necessary in order to keep up with what smaller companies are doing.
That might not be significant now, but, when the time comes, they'll have a whole stable of newbies trying to figure how to regain their what will inevitably be their former glory. I wish them luck; from what I understand, they'll probably need it.
07/16/09
Sorry to hear about your mom. However, one thing to keep in mind is that McGraw-Hill is a publicly traded company. As such, it's primarily the stockholders who direct the course of action, not the editorial/ publishing staff at their various properties.
Some of this windfall is clearly rooted in the death of print as a relevant mass medium, but some of it is just plain old moronism: Having businessmen who don’t give the proverbial two sh*ts or a f*ck about the civic purpose of journalism, blah, blah, etc., in the control booth.
Bottom line: No tsunami wave of layoffs need be taken personally. It's not the editors or even publishers who give the thumb-down. In some well-publicized cases, the editors and/or publishers have resigned in protest when their corporate CEOs twisted their arms to "reduce" staff. (See LAT editor in chief Dean Baquet + his public refusal to fire his charges at the behest of the Tribune Co. CEO, followed by his resignation in protest. I hear his framed portrait in the hallways of 202 W. First St. in L.A. is now kind of an informal shrine..)
Best of luck to mom.
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
07/16/09
03/03/09
02/11/09
That's odd -- they don't seem to be worried about how to cite blog comments.