Comments on: STAR PUBLISHER DENIES REPORTS EMPLOYEES FORCED TO CHOOSE

By: dreambig

dreambig — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 02:37:08 +0000

PRACTICE IS UNFAIR
I agree with many of the previous comments. I would like to add that McClatchy practice to eliminate jobs are unethical and unfair. The Publisher mentioned in her response, “employee with the least tenure will be included in the reduction”….this is very interesting when a person with less tenure was saved by placing him in a different group. A job posting was created but then closed immediately!!!! Not giving others an opportunity to apply for the position. Why? Politics. This job was created for “This Person” who should have received the severence package due to his tenure with the company. This company continues to take and take from its employees without giving anything back. When will enough be enough!!!

By: Me

Me — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:30:15 +0000

NAIL IN COFFIN
The new requirement to purchase a subscription to view their online content will be the final nail in the Star’s coffin. I’ve already removed the bookmark and am going elsewhere for my information.

McClatchy sucks as a company…sad that they own the Star because this city’s paper doesn’t deserve all the mismanagement and negativity that Mc brings to the table.

By: Scott Simon

Scott Simon — Sat, 15 Dec 2012 00:08:42 +0000

CANNOT LEAD A MAJOR PAPER
This publisher has no business in the position she holds. She clearly has demonstrated she does not have the backbone to lead a large city daily newspaper.

By: Tony

Tony — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:06:56 +0000

DID SOUND GOOD
That’s the way I read it. But didn’t she sound so good?

By: JohnLandsberg

JohnLandsberg — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:44:53 +0000

Go for it. I’d be glad to post it and give you credit. Thanks.

By: Guy With A List

Guy With A List — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:33:10 +0000

LIST OF EX-STAR EMPLOYEES?
Dickeylee,

I think I can develop a list from available sources. John, would you like to see it?

Please reply in comments.

By: Karl Kelly

Karl Kelly — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:28:39 +0000

FORGET ANY YOUNG TALENT
Here’s a problem with the memo that seems to have escaped notice: If the person with the “least tenure” is the one whose neck is on the chopping block, why would any young, talented person take a job with the Kansas City Star?

And reading this memo, it seems that Parrish and the “decision makers” certainly DID pit employee against employee and decide among themselves who should go.

After all, it seems that everyone knew who the axe would fall on, and the only way to change that would be for someone else to take the wonderful, “voluntary” option.

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 13:29:07 +0000

SACKED NOW OR LATER
The real story here is that the person who doesn’t get sacked this time will in a few months anyway. At least it gives them a couple of months to look for another job while still employed. Disgusting!

By: JohnLandsberg

JohnLandsberg — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:50:26 +0000

It is pretty obvious to those following this story that the Publisher's memo is an attempt to take lemons and make lemonade. Karen Dillon is quoted on a national media blog saying, “we’ve not made an official decision” on who gets to stay. “It’s one of the most difficult situations I’ve ever faced.”

By: Dickeylee

Dickeylee — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:25:11 +0000

LOT OF EMPTY CUBICLES
Hang in there John! Anybody have a compiled list of all the byline employees booted in the last 3-4 years? I’m thinking a LOT of empty cubicles on Grand…