Let me get this straight. A union is advocating for the firing of "superfluous" employees and "exempts who hold few responsibilities"? These truly are the end times.
@friend_of_a_friend: Yes, and all unionized "superfluous employees" and unionized employees "who hold few responsibilities" would be protected! Yay, Norma Rae!
@MrInBetween: But the thing at the Times is that the people in the union are mostly reporters, copy editors and assistants -- the people who actually WORK. Once you've made "slot" (I'm assuming you know the rim/copy-editing reference) you are no longer in the union. (People have turned down "promotions" to slot because they didn't want to lose the union benefits.)
So, yeah, all those hundreds of layers of semi- to middle-management (and beyond) often ARE superfluous, and many of them (personal observation as an ex-employee) are stupid.
Of course, when I was working there and they got rid of the beloved cafeteria staff but named new "senior executive vice presidents" every other week, I coulda told them how to do better business. No one asked ...
05/04/09
05/04/09
05/04/09
05/04/09
04/02/09
hold few responsibilities"? These truly are the end times.
04/02/09
04/02/09
So, yeah, all those hundreds of layers of semi- to middle-management (and beyond) often ARE superfluous, and many of them (personal observation as an ex-employee) are stupid.
Of course, when I was working there and they got rid of the beloved cafeteria staff but named new "senior executive vice presidents" every other week, I coulda told them how to do better business. No one asked ...