Can furloughs work at small papers?

[Jim Thomsen]

My paper just imposed a 3% pay cut on its Guild-covered newsroom employees (if we didn't, we would have suffered immediate layoffs).

As part of that process, the Guild tried to negotiate furloughs (as in, a week's worth of unpaid days off) as an alternative, reasoning that proportionately less work for less money was a fairer alternative to the same amount of work for less pay.

The idea was a non-starter, however, in large part because our publisher and editor both felt that furloughs among such a small staff (25 now, from 47 at the end of 2006) would be difficult if not impossible to manage. They thought that they couldn't manage it without having to downsize as well the scope and quality of our work. (To which, my answer was: "Fine. Go ahead.")

Leaving aside the unfairness of being in such a short-staffed crunch because of downsizing imposed on us by the same people who insist we're too downsized to give people time off, I wanted to ask:

— Has your small paper had to deal with this pay cuts vs. furloughs issue?

— Could furloughs in lieu of pay cuts work at your paper? Is your paper's management willing to at least discuss that if some sort of cost reduction is being called for?

— Should the burden of accommodating furloughs fall on the rank-and-file, or on management? Or should the burden be shared together?

— Should the newsroom mission be downsized to accommodate such furloughs in the interest of fairness to workers? Or is it reasonable to ask that workers absorb the entire sacrifice so readers don't see fewer stories or poorer-quality material in print and online?

(One ironic sidelight to this: A few weeks ago, I tried to volunteer to go down to a 32-hour work week — in effect, to give back about $13,000 a year. I was turned down. The reason? "We can't afford to do that.")

[Wayne Countryman]

I don't know whether furloughs work at small papers. If staffing is so short that it's a struggle to publish anytime anyone is out sick or on vacation, then a problem exists.

Companies sometimes prefer pay cuts to furloughs because furloughs are one-time savings, while pay cuts (unless they're stipulated as temporary) offer them continual savings.

Good luck.

[JunO]

Furloughs would be tough at my paper, but we could manage if the days could be spread out concerning who and when. We have a newsroom staff, including sports, photogs and editors, of about 16. We've made it through days where people are sick at the same time, so we'd muddle through.

My paper is taking some other options to try and avoid furloughs and pay cuts, though. Our single-copy price will be going up a quarter next month, and they've made some circulation cuts, going to mail delivery in some areas, and there's been one or two open positions that will go unfilled.

I'm not counting out furloughs as a possibility, though.

[dangermike]

I've suggested furloughs here. It'd be a little tough, but not prohibitive, I think.

[(sic) 'em]

We're about to find out; we've just been asked to volunteer to take two days sometime over the next two months. Apparently, there's been a lot of volunteers so far.