| Author | Message | ||
     Buellifer |
The first and third paragraph is what makes me mad and show just how greedy upper management can be... Not to mention the second and fourth shows what hypocrites they are... The head of the printers and mailers unions at the New York Times blasted the $4.5 million “golden parachute” outgoing CEO Janet Robinson will get to consult for the company while workers shoulder cutbacks and wage freezes. “The Times likes to slam CEO excess until they are the ones doing it,” said Arthur Delanni, president of the Allied Printing Trades Council of New York and of the New York Mailers Union Local 6, both of which are within the Communications Workers of America. The mailers, who are responsible for preparing newspapers prior to loading onto delivery trucks, have been without a contract since March 31. Delanni said the last offer from the company proposed a 26 percent pay cut — even though the 170 mailers have not had a raise since 2005. “The Times management should listen to its editorial board, which has criticized skyrocketing CEO pay, saying, ‘It is clear that CEO pay has skyrocketed while workers pay has stagnated; it is also clear that skewed pay and rising income inequality correlate to bubbles and crashes,’” said Delanni. New York Times Co. tried to portray Robinson’s departure at the end of the month as a voluntary “retirement,” with Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. stepping in as interim CEO while the search for a successor gets under way. That scenario began to unravel when the Times disclosed in its own reporting that Sulzberger and Robinson had met the previous Friday and that the chairman “raised the question of installing a different type of leadership at the company.” “It looks very strange,” said Douglas Arthur, an analyst at Evercore. “I don’t think there is any question at this point that she was forced out. “Clearly, there is disenchantment somewhere in the company’s ranks, whether it’s Chairman Sulzberger, the overall family, the board or even Carlos Slim, the largest outside owner of stock.” | ||
| Sifo |
Great you can get upset with so few facts available. You say the first paragraph makes you mad. Is that where he gets paid for consulting? This sort of thing is also often combined with a non-compete clause. Is there one? Is that more than he was getting as CEO? Is that cash, stock options or some combination? How long is that contract for? There's a whole lot of other questions I might ask as I found out some of the particulars. Same thing goes for the employees contract. | ||
| Buellifer |
Since when is the CEO "Janet" Robinson a man. Do some googling if you need more info. I am going to assume your not stupid. This was a short article I copied and pasted. Typical for in here... I was asking what you thought about the article not what you though about my opinion on it. But then I'm sure I will get an ear full from a few more in here. | ||
| Sifo |
Sorry I didn't pay attention to the name. All I said about the lack of information in the article still stands. Almost zero actual information. | ||
| Sifo |
Doing some other reading, she agreed to have her own pay cut a few years back. The Times sounds quite happy with her leadership transitioning to a more online presence. Sounds like she was doing a good job keeping them abreast of the latest technologies. As for the mailers, they are heading the way of horse whip manufactures. It's a disappearing market. Robinson has nothing to do with that and anyone who tries to blame her for this change is being very disingenuous. Does it make sense to dump loads of cash into a declining market segment that you know will continue to dwindle? If she had editorial power of the NYT, then I would be pretty disappointed in her. I haven't found anything saying she had that power though. Better? |
