Tag

layoffs

Browsing

Latest layoffs in Barbados too rushed

Like a storm brewing in the ocean just about to hit land, the latest layoffs in Barbados have caused its own disaster with dangerously swirling emotions of anger and confusion.

On October 14, Prime Minster Mia Mottley made the announcement that the government was seeking to send home around 1,500 public servants during her national address from the official prime minister’s residence, Ilaro Court.

The retrenchment exercise, as explained by Mottley was in an attempt to cut government spending, in line with the objectives outlined in the Barbados Economic Recovery and Transformation (BERT) program, which has received backing from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

News of the impending layoffs were not met with any great enthusiasm, despite the Prime Minister’s attempts to lessen the blow, by utilizing the last in, first out policy, saying that more than 80 percent of the people who would be affected by the lay-offs were those holding temporary positions.

However, even as she explained that those being handed their notices would not be leaving empty-handed, the lay-offs were met by resistance nonetheless.

Mottley said it was regrettable to have to lay off so many, and explained that to her it was important that those who were terminated, left with a cheque dealing with the severance-type payments as well as the notice and the termination.

“None of us would feel good having to go home without knowing where money is coming from and who is going to help us tomorrow or to come back next week or next month and be begging for money,” she said.

The Trade Unions, most notably the National Union of Public Workers (NUPW) were not impressed by the news or how government has ‘rushed’ the layoff process and ‘kept them in the dark’.

On Tuesday it was revealed that most of the 955 central government workers who were to be laid off were female, and the largest public sector trade union described this move as ‘an attack against women’.

NUPW General Secretary Roslyn Smith told the media she was ‘a little bit disappointed in the way that things went’.

“Yes, we recognized that there will be layoffs, but at the same time, we believe that we should have had more time for consultation on such a sensitive issue . . . and when we look, we recognize females . . . as the householders. They are the single parents, they have to look after their children, they have mortgages and rents to pay,” she said.

Giving some credence to her words, many workers received their walking papers on Friday, October 19, less than a week after news broke about the layoffs, creating an atmosphere of anger and confusion.

Confusion because some of the workers were unsure of their employment status as they were terminated by word of mouth and then urged to continue to turn up for work by trade unionist Caswell Franklyn, furthering a very messy situation.

While Mottley said Government would be establishing a household mitigation unit to assist those now on the breadline to ensure that none of them fell below the minimal standard of living, the Unions are calling the exercise a ‘rush job’ and stating that they themselves were not given enough or proper notice of what was going to really happen or how to proceed.

 

 

 

Media layoffs indicative of dangerous industry

A few weeks ago, the Toronto Star announced 52 new layoffs, including 26 people who were hired specifically for their tablet edition — a project that was supposed to transform the journalism industry for the better.

This announcement is only one in a series of job cuts that happened this year. It seems that every single media conglomerate — Rogers, TorStar, Bell Media, and PostMedia — has come to a point where they can’t afford to pay their writers. The journalism industry has always been precarious, but with the introduction of digital media, it seems to have lost control. No one knows what to do. The Toronto Star, for example, has said that despite the layoffs, it will continue to focus on maintaining a strong web and mobile service, as it is the future of news consumption. But, what does that mean? And how does this affect hard working journalists?

First of all, it increases the workload for journalists — without increasing the pay. For the same salary, reporters are now expected to do everything from layout to online production, in addition to interviewing and writing content. They are photographers, digital experts, and social media gurus. I saw a job posting the other day that asked candidates looking to apply for an entry-level reporting job if they were well-versed in Indesign and HTML, able to act as photographer and writer, and able to edit other reporter’s copy. Essentially, the candidate should be able to run the newspaper on their own.

With less staff, quality suffers. News is reported before facts are accurately checked, headlines are misspelled, and photos aren’t laid out properly. Things can get messy fast when one person is responsible for that much work.

The problem is that journalism is constantly changing, and instead of trying to deal with it patiently and with care, news publications are making industry-changing decisions based on the most current technologies available. People are consuming much more of their news on their mobile devices or their work computers than their tablets. Podcasts are becoming more popular and information packaging is now just as important as the content itself. But, what will be “in” 10 years from now and how will that affect how the news is consumed?

The solution isn’t simple. In fact, I can’t even begin to imagine what it is. Revenue is plummeting and the news organizations can’t keep up. Publications need to invest in online advertising and sponsorships — all of the things journalists despise — at least for now. As a journalist myself, I personally feel as if good journalism has to be publicly funded (and not just the CBC). By depending on private corporations, whose ultimate goal will always be to create revenue, news organizations will suffer. They will be forever in debt to declining ad spaces and subscription rates. If the public was willing to contribute and help subsidize part of the cost for informed news, then the goal of profit-making is replaced with that of simple story telling. Isn’t that what we want?

I realize that these solutions aren’t permanent, and that it places the onus on non-agencies to fund a whole profession. But at some point, society is going to have to make a choice. Should publications continue to cut staff and hope that the quality of information and news doesn’t decrease, or should we invest in our journalists? These corporations can spend money on good writers, editors, and producers — or they can spend money on new technology that will probably be out of date in a few years.

Which would you rather have?