How long before your shop sees layoffs from this economy?

[Fake Post]

I am hearing that this economy is going into a freefall, thanks to the lending crisis and Bush's stellar record on the economy.

How long before the ripple effect forces your shop to tighten its belt and lay you off?

I saw layoffs at every one of the shops that I gigged through. My guess is that you will see bigger job losses than normal. Any thoughts?

[Spike]

If they lay everybody off, who's going to tell us how bad everything is?

[Who Cares???]

Can't happen here... there's nobody left to layoff.

[Brain Cramp]

I think it's more likely that those who leave won't be replaced and those who are older will be eased (AKA "forced") into retirement. For the few that will be replaced, it will be at a fraction of the cost with just-out-of-school wide-eyed newbies who will be required to work more hours, do more jobs and be paid much, much, much less than their predecessors.

[interloper]

Layoffs at some of the other group O&O stations have happened in the last month. A few reporters. A few behind the scene producers.

No photogs or editors.

All part time hires have been looked at and most are now gone.

I agree the economy is going to continue to head south.

We'll see more cuts down the road.

Those who actually produce content, photogs and editors, will have a slight advantage over others when it comes time to see who does and doesn't stay employed full time in the news room.

[Sigonfile]

I know that the shop that I work in has way too many management types that are vulnerable to layoffs. These are fluff jobs from the 80's that were obtained because of the "buddy system". You know, Joe Blow was an intern when Matt Fly was an assistant EP. Matt Fly later got the job as assistant ND and gave Joe Blow a newly created job as "manager of the everyday news room scheduling" gig. Matt Fly has moved on to another market and the new ND doesn't know exactly what Joe Blow's job is other than he has been there for five years. Joe Blow is still sitting at his desk and typing away at the keyboard and using the phone. Trouble is...when Joe Blow is on vacation, nobody fills his spot and notices that he is gone. Work goes just as smooth with him gone as when he's not there.

[Bureau Chief]

We started the lay offs last month. Part timers hours cut, NO OT...none at all for any reason and a major equipment upgrade was delayed ...again..for the third time. I agree that the economy is going sour in a hurry and no one seems to be paying attention. I did see an article in US News & Report about "worst case scenerios". Scary stuff.
As long as Bush is in the White House and is sending billions of dollars overseas, I dont see a way to avoid a depression. I have two kids in the military right now. They are both making plans for getting out next year....and Im telling them to wait till the last minute to make that decision because you wont find a job outside by then.

[New York'rr]

The economy was going along fine until the Pelosi/Reid Democrats took control of Congress. Then oil prices shot through the roof despite the Democrats campaign promise to do something to bring it down.

When Wall Street hears about another massive Democrat tax increase, confidence plummets and stock prices fall.

The economy's performance is greatly influenced by the House and Senate, where taxing and spending are decided. When the Newt Gingrich Republicans took over in 1994, a long period of prosperity followed, and nobody minded if Slick Willie took credit despite having nothing to do with it.

So it's no surprise that the first year after a Democrat takeover of Congress, all economic indicators went into the toilet. The Bush tax rate reductions contributed greatly to prosperity. The Democrats' grim promise to reverse that prosperity-inducing policy is a real reason for economic uncertainty.

Most of you deserve to be fired anyway.

[TVMattNYC]

If you're good at what you do, with a solid work ethic, you'll always have a job.

It's only the dead wood who need worry about "the economy".

[carpetsnake]

Whenever a Democratic president is in the White House, it's always "You can't blame the bad economy on the president." But when a Republican is president, it's ALWAYS his fault.
Wasn't the economy headed south when Bush took office in 2001? If we blame Bush for this economy, then we have to blame Clinton for the bad economy in 2000/01.
If Billary or Obama get elected, just wait. You think the economy's bad now?

BTW...for all of you media types...most of the layoffs in TV these days is because of BAD DECISIONS made by the companies that own the stations, whether on the local or corporate level. You can't blame this on Bush, no matter how hard all of the media types try.

Unbiased media? Sheesh, yeah right.

[FD2BLK]

Most of you deserve to be fired anyway.

You forgot to mention that it will backfire on them.

[HookEcho]

It will just bring us to a whole new "level" with the old saying, "Doing more with less".

[wx or not]

If you're good at what you do, with a solid work ethic, you'll always have a job.

It's only the dead wood who need worry about "the economy".

Matt, as one who just lost the chief met position because of cutbacks, I can tell you that I am hopeful that your first statement is true. However, I decided to move out of the biz, leaving the chance for newbies to join in the fray. It's true I do have a job now, despite my continuing high work ethic. Even during the worst of the Depression, the greatest percentage of unemployed Americans hit 25%. So there's hope; unfortunately, I feel somehow that this time something's different...
Scott

[NewsguyMark]

Gas prices more than doubled during Bush... Good jobs went to China and India. Anf the Fright-wing wackos blame Pelosi.... Incredible!

[interloper]

I must be on the wrong message board here.

Is this the j-forum or the open line "full of crazy political excuses" forum?

Keep the political finger pointing on the crazy side of Medialine.

This is the adult corner where we try and discuss realities in the world of journalism and working newsrooms.

Play your partisan political name calling games somewhere else.

[seer]

The economy was going along fine until the Pelosi/Reid Democrats took control of Congress. Then oil prices shot through the roof despite the Democrats campaign promise to do something to bring it down.

When Wall Street hears about another massive Democrat tax increase, confidence plummets and stock prices fall.

The economy's performance is greatly influenced by the House and Senate, where taxing and spending are decided. When the Newt Gingrich Republicans took over in 1994, a long period of prosperity followed, and nobody minded if Slick Willie took credit despite having nothing to do with it.

So it's no surprise that the first year after a Democrat takeover of Congress, all economic indicators went into the toilet. The Bush tax rate reductions contributed greatly to prosperity. The Democrats' grim promise to reverse that prosperity-inducing policy is a real reason for economic uncertainty.

Most of you deserve to be fired anyway.

Eight years of the same excuse. IT'S NOT BUSH! Sorry dude but it's pretty clear who has run us into the toilet! Now it will be up to a Democrat, once again, to clean up a Republican mess.

[Sigonfile]

I would really worry if I were in the print or radio side of journalism. I know locally, radio stations that do local news have teamed up with local TV to pull sound from their newscast. I know of at least six jobs that were eliminated in radio newsrooms due to this.

[interloper]

I would really worry if I were in the print or radio side of journalism. I know locally, radio stations that do local news have teamed up with local TV to pull sound from their newscast. I know of at least six jobs that were eliminated in radio newsrooms due to this.

Good point!

Our stations across the country are partnered with local news radio in their respective markets. Very little of the radio news audio is self produced. It all comes from the tv station news stories and used, with a credit to the tv station, in all of their radio news stories.

[Bureau Chief]

If you're good at what you do, with a solid work ethic, you'll always have a job.

It's only the dead wood who need worry about "the economy".

Ya...I'll be sure to mention this to the 700 workers who lost there job here last year when their factory was moved to Malasia.

[TVNewsLady]

They axed our part timers at the beginning of the year. No plans to replace and we're in a hiring freeze.

[RoyMcAvoy]

If you're good at what you do, with a solid work ethic, you'll always have a job.

It's only the dead wood who need worry about "the economy".

Never thought I'd see the day, Matt. :)

I would say the process of "reading the tea leaves" is also important. Are your newscasts full of ads or just promo spots? How is your ownership group doing? How is your group's stock price?

There will always be a place for hard workers with a wide range of skills (if you are an 'anchor, then do more than just anchoring but also produce, report and become web-literate -- or, not just photographers, but also a person that can edit, possibly report and be web-literate). Make yourself more useful than ever.

Resisting technological advances is futile. Learn the new skills if you go tapeless, VJ or have a new web template. You can take those skills with you to a better paying job.

Also, in 2008, look into working second jobs (look into working even from home on your schedule and hours). Use your writing skills and hook on with some freelancing possibilities. If you make, say, 60k from your TV job and 15k from a freelancing gig...you make 75k total but your TV GM will only see 60k for the cost to the station. It's a balancing act now to try and make as much money as possible but not to "stick out" compared with your co-workers.

As for the Chief Met that posted, I can't comment on work ethic but any TV on-air person making the top-tier of their market will always be at risk. I'm at that point too and there by the Grace of God...

Met -- I hope you get back on your feet.

Overall, I believe this economy is different because the U.S. manufacturing base is different than in previous downturns. This supposed recession will be a more "personal" one. Example, if you are financially "upside down", you will have much more difficulty than a person not under mountains of debt. Borrowed money will become harder to find, unless you already have a little bit of cash.

I keep seeing and reading these stories of absolute financial despair in the U.S.. Well...three years ago, I didn't buy the gigantic McMansion with no money down. I could see the real estate pullback coming. I still have a small house and I still have a tiny mortgage payment. I see wasteful spending everywhere -- like the people at the grocery store who definitely look a few financial rungs down from me but they hop into a $45,000 SUV or extended cab truck. I just roll in my ten-year-old Corolla and smile. No car payments in years.

Even with all of the national financial negativity, I've never made as much money as I am right now and, even better, I've never had the skill set that I've been able to acquire. My job could evaporate tomorrow and, while the brief financial setback would hurt, I'm 100% confident that I could land an even better paying job in the business. Yes, the dying TV news business.

The beauty of America is that you can "make your own raise" anytime you want. Just look for opportunity.

And, in TV, do your job well, don't whine and complain and if the desk asks you to do a little more...try and make it happen without complaint. Make that extra phone call to confirm a story. Go shoot that urgent breaking news if you are two hours from your next newscast. Just...get it done. (especially if you're in a contract year and the ND is watching!). :)

[tralala]

Can we puh-leeease have at least one ML forum free of the bitter crap-slinging from both sides?!? A lot of the economy's problems are related to the housing market and sub-prime debacle. Can't really blame that on either political party. Blame the irresponsible lenders and irresponsible borrowers for that one.

But beyond that, it seems that broadcasting is uniquely in trouble because not only are we experiencing the general economy hit, but the technology hit (ie., fewer and fewer people feel they need us for news). Is there a way for television news to reinvent itself and overcome this, or are we doomed to go the way of print news? Thoughts?

[Spike]

OMG it's teh LAYOFFS!!!!

TVMatt has it just about right. Right now the national unemployment rate is running about 4.8%. If I pick your name at random out of the population, you have more than a 95% chance of NOT being unemployed.

Suppose the unemployment rate were to double. All the news folks would be lamenting the downfall of America. And yet you'd still have more than a 90% chance of NOT being unemployed.

Unemployment in my area just recently hit 4%, and you'd think the world was ending from the boohooing in my local paper. No doubt it's going to be rough for some people. But the overwhelming majority of us will continue on just fine.

[WOS]

It will just bring us to a whole new "level" with the old saying, "Doing more with less".

Yep...stations doing more with less, and their employees having to do more with less when they pick up their paychecks.

[Spike]

Ya...I'll be sure to mention this to the 700 workers who lost there job here last year when their factory was moved to Malasia.

... As you conveniently ignore the 2000 NEW jobs being generated in Alabama by the recent tanker contract with Northrop Grumman. Or the 100,000 NEW jobs generated in Houston last year. Or the 1000 NEW shipbuilding jobs in the Port of Terrebonne in Louisiana, carrying an average salary of $54,000. If you bother looking, you will find hundreds of other examples like this.

Why is it that people only remember the layoffs, and never remember the new jobs? Do you really think that all those people just sit around unemployed for the rest of their lives? Does it not occur to you that if that happened, it would be mathematically impossible for the unemployment rate to sit steady at under 5% as it has?

Yeah, companies downsize, and jobs are lost. But companies also expand, and new companies start up, causing NEW jobs to be created. But I guess that's not as newsworthy as OH MY GOD TEH LAYOFFS TEH LAYOFFS TEH ECONOMY GOING TO CRAP WE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!

[Bureau Chief]

We havent HAD any new jobs here. Most of you DO NOT LIVE IN RURAL AMERICA....and things are BAD in the smaller towns, away from the cities.

I am still waiting for the NAFTA crap to generate all those jobs they promised here locally "if only we could get behind the agreement."

[Spike]

We havent HAD any new jobs here. Most of you DO NOT LIVE IN RURAL AMERICA....and things are BAD in the smaller towns, away from the cities.

There are two automobile factories that have come to my state in recent years. Both of them are located in rural areas.

Just because the plant in your backwater closed doesn't mean things are bad everywhere. This is the whole point. A plant closes in your state. A plant opens in mine. Another plant closes in my state. And yet another opens out west somewhere. Texas loses jobs. Minnesota gains jobs. North Dakota gains jobs. North Carolina loses some.

Again, you are conveniently ignoring the hundreds of thousands of NEW JOBS that are generated to replace the old ones. You are conveniently ignoring the basic math that says that the unemployment rate cannot remain relatively stable if all those people remain unemployed. Bad luck comes to some people. Good luck comes to others. If I get hit by a car on my way to work, it doesn't mean that everybody else gets hit also.

[Newzie52]

No new layoffs here - just cheap as usual. The economy here is actually booming, with nothing but more of the same on the horizon. Hope it translates into something tangible for folks at our shop.

[The Mockingbird]

OMG it's teh LAYOFFS!!!!

TVMatt has it just about right. Right now the national unemployment rate is running about 4.8%. If I pick your name at random out of the population, you have more than a 95% chance of NOT being unemployed.

Suppose the unemployment rate were to double. All the news folks would be lamenting the downfall of America. And yet you'd still have more than a 90% chance of NOT being unemployed.

Unemployment in my area just recently hit 4%, and you'd think the world was ending from the boohooing in my local paper. No doubt it's going to be rough for some people. But the overwhelming majority of us will continue on just fine.

The devil is in the details, Spike. That 4.8% figure is only people who have a current unemployment claim, not people who didn't find a job in that time period. A lot of people with semi-skilled manufacturing jobs have found/are finding themselves in a really crappy situation.

Also, when you see numbers like 34,182 new jobs!!!1111!!! like we had in 2004, 5, etc, you need to take into account what type of jobs they are.
The trend is that higher paying jobs are getting eliminated in favor of lower-paying service industry jobs. IT jobs, for example, are getting farmed out to India. At the same time, they're getting replaced with checkout jobs at four new CVS pharmacies.

One paid $118,000. The other pays $22,000.

So, it's really not as simple as a number you do a 15 second vo on at noon.

[Spike]

The devil is in the details, Spike. That 4.8% figure is only people who have a current unemployment claim, not people who didn't find a job in that time period.

Nope, that's unemployment as estimated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which uses the economist's definition of unemployment. They conduct a survey of a sample of the population and classify as unemployed any adult who does not have a job, is available for work and actively sought work during the prior four weeks. They don't look at unemployment claims at all.

The Department of Labor publishes a separate estimate of the total number of unemployment claims during a particular period. This is reported as an actual number of individuals. I don't believe they report that as a rate.

This is why you can have unemployment claims and the unemployment rate go in different directions. This is why you can have seemingly conflicting articles in the same newspaper from one day to the next, as reporters who don't know the difference refer to both statistics as "unemployment" and print uninformed and misleading information about the employment situation.

[Spike]

Also:

Also, when you see numbers like 34,182 new jobs!!!1111!!! like we had in 2004, 5, etc, you need to take into account what type of jobs they are.
The trend is that higher paying jobs are getting eliminated in favor of lower-paying service industry jobs. IT jobs, for example, are getting farmed out to India. At the same time, they're getting replaced with checkout jobs at four new CVS pharmacies.

One paid $118,000. The other pays $22,000.


If the trend is toward lower-paying jobs, then the mathematical consequence of that trend should be that the median household income should be moving downward. If more people are making less money, then that would pull the median toward the bottom even if the few people at the top make more money. But that isn't happening. Instead, the median household income trends upward at around 1% to 3% per year, right about the same as inflation.

How is that possible if all those $118K jobs are being replaced by $22K jobs?

Answer: It isn't.

[trunky]

"2000 NEW jobs being generated in Alabama by the recent tanker contract with Northrop Grumman"

I get your point, but thought it prudent to point out that there are thousands of American workers in other parts of the country very upset about the Air Force outsourcing this $40 billion contract to a foreign company...

[Sigonfile]

No wonder the economy is in shambles. Everyday when I'm driving to work, I see brand new "strip malls" being built only to sit with no tenants for years. Who loans these people money to build structures that just sit? I recently spoke to a "Sears Hardware" manager that was closing his store only after occupying a space in a new strip mall for two years. He said that the "rent" was $10,000 a month and their sales only averaged $600 a day. With utilities, wages, ect. it was impossible to stay in business. Now the building sits vacant. You and I are paying the note on this somewhere, somehow. Everyday working stiffs can hardly afford to buy homes yet banks and financial institutions continue to make bad loans to these development companies. Must be nice!

[Spike]

"2000 NEW jobs being generated in Alabama by the recent tanker contract with Northrop Grumman"

I get your point, but thought it prudent to point out that there are thousands of American workers in other parts of the country very upset about the Air Force outsourcing this $40 billion contract to a foreign company...

Irrelevant. For the purposes of this discussion, new jobs are new jobs. Whether it's just 2000 new jobs in Alabama or would have been even more new jobs if Boeing had gotten the contract, what's relevant to this discussion is that they are new jobs that offset the 700 jobs lost in BC's backwater.

[trunky]

"This is the whole point. A plant opens in your state. A plant closes in mine. Another plant opens in my state. And yet another closes out west somewhere. Texas gains jobs. Minnesota loses jobs. North Dakota loses jobs. North Carolina gains some.

Again, you are conveniently ignoring the hundreds of thousands of JOBS LOST as some new ones are generated."

Relevant.

[Spike]

"This is the whole point. A plant opens in your state. A plant closes in mine. Another plant opens in my state. And yet another closes out west somewhere. Texas gains jobs. Minnesota loses jobs. North Dakota loses jobs. North Carolina gains some.

Again, you are conveniently ignoring the hundreds of thousands of JOBS LOST as some new ones are generated."

Relevant.

You mind explaining how?

[trunky]

You accused Bureau Chief of "conveniently ignoring" 2000 new jobs in AL resulting from a contract with NG.

You explained that a plant closing in one area ultimately doesn't mean much when two more open somewhere else. In the same vein of logic, I mention that the NG contract may ultimately not mean much considering it outsourced thousands of American jobs.

Then you say it's irrelevant, conveniently ignoring your own point.

"Bad luck comes to some people. Good luck comes to others."

[Spike]

You accused Bureau Chief of "conveniently ignoring" 2000 new jobs in AL resulting from a contract with NG.

You explained that a plant closing in one area ultimately doesn't mean much when two more open somewhere else. In the same vein of logic, I mention that the NG contract may ultimately not mean much considering it outsourced thousands of American jobs.

No existing American jobs were outsourced. Boeing has not laid off any workers (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/354376_boeing10.html?source=rss) as a result of the deal:

"In fact, no layoffs are expected at the Boeing plant in Everett, where the 767 is assembled, as a result of losing the contract. On the contrary, the company is hiring workers because of a $255 billion backlog for jetliners."

The deal will result in net positive new American jobs. It would have resulted in net positive new American jobs whether Boeing or Northrop Grumman got the contract. Your point is still irrelevant.

[Ralphie the buffalo]

Ya...I'll be sure to mention this to the 700 workers who lost there job here last year when their factory was moved to Malasia.

Congratulations on being the turning point where this whole discussion to go to Hell.

We were having a nice little discussion on layoffs in the BROADCASTING sector and you have to go global.
The thread title is How long before your shop sees layoffs from this economy? (http://openline.medialine.com/showthread.php?p=362995#post362995), not let's discuss macroeconomic theory.
And learn how to spell Malaysia. That gaffe just screams ignorance to any educated reader.

Back to the original question -- TVMatt is spot on. The least productive individuals are going to be looking for work.
Unless it is a union shop. Then it is usually last hired, first fired.

And companies are going to start skimping on capital expenditures. That is another place that cost cutting will affect you.

[Spike]

Congratulations on being the turning point where this whole discussion to go to Hell.

We were having a nice little discussion on layoffs in the BROADCASTING sector and you have to go global.
The thread title is How long before your shop sees layoffs from this economy? (http://openline.medialine.com/showthread.php?p=362995#post362995), not let's discuss macroeconomic theory.

Because the broadcasting industry exists in a vacuum, and what's happening in the economy at large doesn't affect it?

[trunky]

"The deal will result in net positive new American jobs."
Myopic analysis. I'm of the camp that isn't so sure this is the case.

"We really have to wake up the country," said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. "We are at risk of losing a major part of our aerospace industry to the Europeans forever."

Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., said: "It's outsourcing our national security. An American tanker should be built by an American company with American workers."

...

Boeing said its bid would create or support 44,000 American jobs. The Airbus team's figure was 25,000 jobs in 49 states. Both numbers are impossible to verify.

In fact, no layoffs are expected at the Boeing plant in Everett, where the 767 is assembled, as a result of losing the contract. On the contrary, the company is hiring workers because of a $255 billion backlog for jetliners. Airbus, too, has a huge backlog.

So basically...oversimplifying and concluding that x or y number of jobs will be created because of this contract would blatently be both spurious and hypothetical since one, the workers are being hired because of pre-existing "backlogs," secondly, because no one can categorically say how many jobs will come of existence.

We can agree to disagree, it's rather alright with me. In the meantime I imagine you'll continue conveniently ignoring your own point.

"Bad luck comes to some people. Good luck comes to others."

Relevant.

[Ralphie the buffalo]

Because the broadcasting industry exists in a vacuum, and what's happening in the economy at large doesn't affect it?

Of course you were just delighted the discussion was expanded.

[11-Evil]

No lay-offs here. We are actually advertising for 2 brand new jobs in our newsroom. Both salaried with one being a management position and the other an anchor. I haven't seen many applications come through for the anchor - guess nobody wants it?

[Spike]

We are actually advertising for 2 brand new jobs in our newsroom.

Impossible! There are no new jobs! There are only layoffs! The layoffs will continue until nobody is working at all!

[AllAboutFormat]

Never thought I'd see the day, Matt. :)

I would say the process of "reading the tea leaves" is also important. Are your newscasts full of ads or just promo spots? How is your ownership group doing? How is your group's stock price?



Wow that is some good advice. When the ad load goes up to 12+ minutes of your 30 min newscast, you're either a)for sale b) trying to improve the bottom line for investors c) both of the above.

As for layoffs, I find lots of stations using hiring freezes and using attrition instead.

The problem is this: how much money do they NEED for stock holders, investors, etc? Some owners who have been in the game a LONG time are used to MASSIVE profit margins and this isn't a time for that kind of earning. They freak.

The other kind of owners like the investment firms (i.e. flip specialists) don't CARE about anything BUT the bottom line so get ready for layoffs and big names to be let go, more part timers to be used, more automation, etc.

This wheel will turn over again, but I really am not sure that local TV news is going to be any better for it. Layoffs or not. Even at the national level I see the same stories being done over and over. It's not just FOX, CNN or MSNBC either. I watched ESPN and the same story and same video went from show to show to show and it was NOT reapeats of SportsCenter... they were all different shows and it wasn't a particularly large sports story.

Everyone is doing more with less. Bet YOUR local newscast uses the same stories over the 24 hour cycle again and again without as many re-writes or re-cuts because there just aren't as many people to change it up or expand it. It's the reality of local TV news in many markets.

So I don't know about MAJOR layoffs in TV news, but attrition will certainly be a big deal.

[The Mockingbird]

Let's also not forget churn, the friend of the nickel and diming broadcast company.

[!]

Most of you DO NOT LIVE IN RURAL AMERICA....
Duh.

If we did, it wouldn't be rural.