No sooner did Publishers Weekly editor-in-chief Sara Nelson write in her weekly column that she was feeling hopeful that the wave of industry firings was over than she got laid off herself. Reed Publications, parent company of PW, announced that all three of their publishing industry trade magazines will now be run by one editor, Brian Kenney. Meanwhile, Reed also announced that thirty staffers were pink slipped today at Variety, their entertainment industry trade publication.
That’s a real shame. Sara is a fine writer and an interesting voice in publishing, gave PW some pizazz, which is desperately needed. Not a lot of places left for someone like her to land, unfortunately.
I’m sorry this happened to her, I’m sure she’s a very capable and talented person. It really makes me angry the way companies slash their staffs during a recession. What is needed is some kind of federal law that makes it mandatory to continue paying a laid off worker for 3 months at their full salary from the date of the lay-off. This would not only give workers more financial security, they’d have 3 months at full pay to find a new job so that their lives can continue on with the minimum of upheaval, and three months should be a good enough time limit. The way I see it is, if the company is going to cause pain then they should help to alleviate it.
Their Spanish-language magazine, CrÃticas, was also gutted. It was a valuable resource for new Spanish fiction.
Dan, that mandatory three-month thing would only make employers more gunshy — they’d instead run understaffed from the gitgo to allow a cushion in case of a slowdown, and they’d fire people at the first blip in the earnings report so they could absorb the three-month payout while their books were still good.
My experience has been no one has shed tears over my numerous separations from the world of the employed, including me. It’s just been the way of every business I’ve ever been in including show business. I liked walking offstage on the Friday night taping of sitcoms and being handed a signed pink voucher. Free at last!
Nathan, I see your point, employers have rights, too, and one of them is to decide on their staffing levels. And the vast majority of employers act responsibly and caringly. So it’s the others that I’m thinking about.
When times are good, management and investors reap the benefits without much limitation. When times are tough, management and investors still keep getting paid but it’s the workers who suffer by getting laid off en masse. It seems to me it’s not equitable. When times are good, companies should set up a contingentcy fund for the workers they will eventually lay off. Companies set up such funds all the time to cover things like possible lawsuits. Usually there are four or so good years to a business cycle and one to one and a half down years. If a company makes a billion a year, then it shouldn’t be too much to ask to put aside $50 million per year to fund laid-off employees for a year and a half.
Anyway, Exxon made $40 billion one year. If they are now laying off workers, that, to me, is unacceptable. A modest amount of those earnings would see laid off workers through to the next up cycle.