The Guardian
topics
Close Box

News From Us:

Our latest report; our new video section; and jobs with paidContent.org and paidContent:UK


NYT Lays Off 100 On The Business Side; Cuts Salary For All Non-Union Staff, Including Sulzberger

The New York Times Company (NYSE: NYT) is laying off some 100 NYT business-side employees and cutting non-union salaries across the board. NYFishbowl has the memo, which also outlines a “temporary” 5 percent salary reduction for all non-union employees at the NYT.  In an attempt at softening the blow, NYT execs say staffers can take an additional 10 personal days off over the next nine months. The memo contains a promise that salaries will return to current levels next year, adding, “Of course, such a decision depends on the state of our business.”

Staci adds: The salary cuts affect all non-union employees across the company—including executive officers—but at varying degrees. The only exception, according to the company, is the International Herald Tribune, which is taking other cost-cutting measures.  NYTCo didn’t mention the layoffs in an SEC filing but said the salary cuts would cover executive officers as well. Effective April 1, the salaries of Chairman Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., CEO Janet Robinson and others will drop 5 percent. According to the 2009 proxy, Sulzberger’s base salary for 2008 was $1,087,000, while Robinson’s was $1 million. Sulzberger and Robinson distributed their own company-wide memo.

The salary hits for non-union employees differ by division. From the filing: “The salaries of these employees at the Company’s New York Times Media Group (with the exception of the International Herald Tribune), The Boston Globe, Boston.com and corporate employees at the Company’s New York headquarters will be reduced 5% effective April 1, 2009, through December 31, 2009.  In exchange, these employees, including the Company’s executive officers, will be entitled to 10 additional days off to use before the end of the year.  The salaries of employees of the About Group, Baseline, Regional Media Group, Worcester Telegram & Gazette and certain non-New York-based corporate and other departments will be reduced 2.5%, with five additional days off. The Company made the distinction between the two groups taking into account location and other factors.”

It may sound a tad better—extra vacation days in lieu of salary—but it’s essentially the same furlough concept being implemented by Gannett (NYSE: GCI) and others. One difference: since this will be treated like vacation and the timing can be spread across the year.

Unions: The company is asking the Newspaper Guild to follow suit, as the newsroom memo puts it, “in a spirit of shared sacrifice and as a way to otherwise avoid layoffs in the newsroom.” It’s also working with unions in Boston.

NYT: “The layoffs represent almost 5 percent of the more than 2,000 employees in the business operations of the flagship Times newspaper. It comes on top of other recent downsizing steps by the company, including the layoffs of 27 people in The Times’s advertising department last month, and of about 500 people in January, with the closure of City and Suburban, a newspaper and magazine distribution subsidiary. At the end of 2008, the company had 9,346 employees, down from 10,710 who worked in the same operations two years earlier.”

Photo Credit: omar_chatriwala

Related Stories
Mar 26, 2009 11:56 AM ET
Share

Posted In: Jobs & Layoffs, Media & Publishing, Newspapers, Companies, New York Times, layoffs

  • Nathanr

    Why isn't anyone calling for the union to offer up their own cut?  Unions should work both ways and in this case, if they don't offer up a cut, they risk alienating their colleagues, demonstrating how much they do not understand the plight of the company and really dont care if the NYTimes survives…

  • Jill

    I have noticed the NY Times is carrying more ads in recent days. Back in Jan and Feb, the business section would carry no ads for days and the A section would have about 3 ad pages in the entire section.

    Starting a couple of weeks ago, the Times is carrying more ads and is looking closer to normal.

    I have not seen an explanation anywhere. I wonder if your reporters can dig out the story behind this. Is this a result of drastically cut rates or the beginnings of a recovery?

The Economics of Content | paidContent Newsletter

Know something we don’t?

Send Us a News Tip

All tips are anonymous and untraced.

Sponsors

Contributors