Good news and bad news
The good news is that we've rehired Jonnelle Davis, a reporter we laid off, to fill the vacancy left by Kory Dodd.
The bad news is that Jonathan Jones, our court reporter, has resigned to attend UNC law school this fall. (OK, not bad news for him, but for us.) Jonathan, who wrote today's front page story, has also been a frequent blog commenter. According to the public polls, he's leaving one line of work that isn't high on the public's list of respected jobs to join one that's even lower. He has his work cut out for him. If anyone can lift the ratings, he can. We'll miss him; he's not leaving until the end of July.
Comments (10)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Log,
Y'all sure treat people nice. Firing Jonelle after four short months, only to offer to rehire her once again. Simply amazing.
Posted on June 26, 2007 2:40 PM
Welcome to the world of business. Course, Jonnelle is delighted to be back and we're delighted to have her so all's good.
Posted on June 26, 2007 6:17 PM
Is the implication that not hiring her back would have been the "nice" thing to do?
When I heard Kory was leaving I wondered if (and hoped that) they'd hire back some of the reporters who were laid off. I did joke to JR that it would be a little like Lucy, Charlie Brown and the football -- but I did think it was the right thing to do.
Under the circumstances, it seems like her being hired back is the best possible resolution. Given her severance package she might even make money on the bargain. I'm a little amazed she decided to come back -- but now that she has, I find it hard to see it as a bad thing.
Posted on June 26, 2007 9:01 PM
Call me crazy, but I don't think standard operating procedure in most businesses is to invite someone to come work for you--knowing that it involves moving across state lines--fire them four months later and then say after two weeks, 'You know what, we'd like you to come back to work for us,' because yet another of our reporters has quit.
Not only does it send a horrible message to everyone else in the organization, I think it tells the public at large that you're an organization that values its people about as much as the rest of us value our morning paper--something to be tossed out just as quickly as its utility is exhausted, but then pulled out of the garbage as soon as we realize there's a coupon or an article we might actually have use for.
Yeah, other companies treat people shabbily, too, but that doesn't mean you should, as well.
Posted on June 27, 2007 10:18 AM
Norskar,
I don't think that is treating people shabbily. What could be interpreted as shabby is to open up the job to others without calling someone you just laid off. I would hope the job offer would confirm in Jonelle's mind that she was valuable to the paper while she is here, which could saver her the time and expense of a job search and move. If I had been laid off, I would have liked the opportunity to accept or decline the job offer. Plus, JR had previously mentioned that he would try to hire back someone he laid off when they occurred.
Posted on June 27, 2007 11:53 AM
Norskar, I appreciate you wanting to making something like this look bad. It's not the way I'd have preferred to do things, either. But the fact is that businesses do have to make decisions like this for their financial health. As such, if Jonnelle is glad to be back and we're glad to have her back, what is the downside to the reader?
The message it sends to the organization is that the layoffs were based not on performance but on seniority, which is traditional. As soon as we had an opening we went back to one of those laid off. I hope and believe that the organization sees rationality in the action.
Posted on June 27, 2007 1:28 PM
Personally if I were laid off from a newspaper and then someone quit opening up a job, I would be glad to get a call asking me if I wanted to come back. Presumably I liked the job I had before the lay off, right?
Posted on June 28, 2007 4:39 PM
Well, the question isn't whether or not they should've hired Ms. Davis back. The problem is the way the layoffs were handled in the first place. Norskar has it right - the N&R and John Robinson treat their employees like disposable commodities
Oh, and Mr. Robinson - when Kory Dodd and Jonathan Jones announced they were leaving, did you have them escorted out of the building by security guards?
You know, that's how you treated the folks who got laid off.
Posted on June 29, 2007 11:39 AM
Well, digusted, you seem to be talking about something different than Norskar from my vantage point. You sound angry about the manner in which the laid off employees were treated as they left the organization. If you were one of those employees and you felt unfairly treated, I'm sorry for that. If not and the former employees are OK with it (and yes, I'm assuming here), why are you worked up about it? Norskar, on the other hand, seems to be mad that the N&R laid off an employee and then a couple of weeks later when an opening became available, called her back and gave her a job. That's apples and oranges. To me.
Anyway, it's worked out well for Jonelle, and hopefully those other displaced journalists will find new job opportunities. I wish them luck.
Posted on June 29, 2007 3:20 PM
disgusted, the company handled the layoffs as many companies do. We tried to handle it as compassionately as we could and still adhere to the law. When employees have been dismissed, it's not unusual for them to be escorted out of the building. People were angry and upset. While it may seem cold, we couldn't have them roaming through the business.
Posted on June 30, 2007 9:03 AM