AddThis SmartLayers

Give editors the chop, not staff say Archant journalists

Union representatives are calling for editors to face the axe at two Suffolk newspapers instead of 14 other staff whose jobs are under threat.

Last week regional newspaper publisher Archant Suffolk announced the Ipswich Evening Star is to move to five-day a week publication and drop the ‘evening’ from its title resulting in the loss of 14 editorial jobs from the 91 strong workforce.

Those at risk of losing their jobs include photographers, sub-editors and feature writers. Newsdesk, sport, commercial and business writers will be unaffected.

In a statement to the company this week union members argued that if the editorial team is being merged then so should the editors’ roles, which includes two editors and two deputy editors.

Members have suggested alternative proposals to management that two of the editors’ job should go with the remaining editors working for both papers like the rest of the staff.

The changes will take effect from 23 January and will see the Star’s Saturday edition replaced by a new Ipswich edition of sister title the East Anglian Daily Times.

The company put the changes down to the economic downturn and East Anglian Daily Times editor Terry Hunt said last week the move would further strengthen the Saturday edition.

The NUJ’s statement read: “Regrettably, we think merging the editors’ posts is necessary, and is a viable alternative to what the company is proposing, which we think will be very damaging to both papers.

“We recognise the company has a difficult balancing act and we have welcomed its decision to try to keep the Star as close to a daily as possible. However, it has become a very top-heavy organisation and we believe that the current management structure is unsustainable given the costs of retaining it.

“This change is inevitable, and the current economic situation is unfortunately hastening the need for a brave decision by management to move to this point. If the papers need to become leaner, let’s start at the top, not the bottom.

“We have already said we would accept the loss of three ‘natural wastage posts’ as long as it doesn’t have an adverse impact on other staff’s workloads, and that leaves 11 jobs at stake. Ultimately, it’s 11 jobs versus two, and we believe those 11 are more vital to the future of the newspapers.”

A spokesman for Archant said: “We are currently engaged in a consultation with regard to the proposed changes in Suffolk editorial and are engaging constructively on any alternative proposal from  employee representatives as part of that process.”

23 comments

You can follow all replies to this entry through the comments feed.
  • January 12, 2012 at 10:01 am
    Permalink

    Haha!
    Charming.
    Good to see solidarity among editorial colleagues is alive and well and living in Ipswich.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • January 12, 2012 at 10:43 am
    Permalink

    Nice. My job’s at risk, so let’s find someone else’s job to put at risk instead.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • January 12, 2012 at 11:32 am
    Permalink

    The reason behind the unions thinking is axe 2 deputy jobs, so save £100K+ which would mean they might reduce the lower paid journalists being cut, by at least 4 depending on how much they are all paid. The company will have set a financial figure to save.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • January 12, 2012 at 11:49 am
    Permalink

    Then who would edit the papers?

    Like this comment(0)
  • January 12, 2012 at 11:52 am
    Permalink

    Instead of the editors, or the journalists, what about those higher up the food chain that have proven themselves incapable of running a business. Following bad ideas from newspaper groups, merging key elements of sister papers so as to slowly erode their identity and readership and cuts, cuts and, hang on, what about some cuts?
    Or why not take a big decision and close down papers wholesale? Because that is the direction the people making these decisions seem to be heading in.
    I feel sorry for the Suffolk teams who must be worried about their future. And all journalists in the same boat.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • January 12, 2012 at 11:59 am
    Permalink

    Agree 100 per cent. Always believed newspapers’ management structure is ridiculous. Heads of department should have been given way more responsibility years ago. Big news stories, big news days have big, involved conferences. But sport can generally run itself, as can other departments. News especially so when you get beyond page these days. Too many cooks.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • January 12, 2012 at 12:00 pm
    Permalink

    And on which planet do you live, Simon, where deputy editors earn in excess of £50k pa? Certainly not anywhere that regional papers are published. And if we get rid of editors who would take legal and management responsibility for the papers? And what would there be for anyone to aspire to? Editors started off at the bottom, and worked hard to acquire the skills, knowledge and experience to be promoted. A process that takes many years. What the union is suggesting would mean that papers would be staffed by trainees with no career path and no promotion prospects – and no-one with the experience to make decisions or take responsibility for those decisions. Classic. Anyone else read Animal Farm?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • January 12, 2012 at 12:14 pm
    Permalink

    It is refreshing to see management comment on a story for a change… Newsquest take note!

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • January 12, 2012 at 12:25 pm
    Permalink

    No need for sackings; that blights lives.
    Just need some managers to do a bit more hands-on “factory floor” work in view of staff shortages.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • January 12, 2012 at 12:34 pm
    Permalink

    @paperboy

    Get rid of one editor and there’d still be one left…

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • January 12, 2012 at 12:39 pm
    Permalink

    Maisie Dobbs – what are the career prospects for a reporter these days? Please tell me what I should aspire to. As far as I can see, in times gone by a reporter starting at the local weekly could move onto the local big town or city daily. Then he or she would have had a decent shot at becoming a specialist reporter, news editor, a sub-editor, maybe ending up as a chief sub or deputy editor. With the future for sub-editors looking extremely bleak and newsdesks of various papers being merged, it doesn’t look great to me. In addition reporting staff are being slashed everywhere, so the chance of even making the first move away from the weekly is pretty slim for most. The sooner we all give up and get out, the better. There is no future.

    As far as what the unions are saying in Ipswich goes, it seems like a good idea to me. If all the executives are concerned with is getting out a paper (in any form), which seems the case in most places, it needs reporters to find and write the news. Papers could easily survive without the people who spend most of their days in meetings, pontificating about how others do their jobs.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • January 12, 2012 at 12:55 pm
    Permalink

    “Papers could easily survive without the people who spend most of their days in meetings, pontificating about how others do their jobs.”

    Dear me. Is that what you actually think editors do?

    Breaking News: Papers could easily survive without gobby fly-by-night trainee reporters using them as stepping-stones to get into PR while stabbing their editors in the back.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • January 12, 2012 at 1:09 pm
    Permalink

    Re: We’re doomed… that’s exactly what I said – take out the senior roles that people can aspire to and what’s left?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • January 12, 2012 at 3:37 pm
    Permalink

    Maisie Dobbs. I live in the real world where a regional paper (45k sales a day) near me has a deputy earning about £65K. A deputy earning less than £50k will have sold themselves short, for the responsibility the job entails.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • January 12, 2012 at 4:30 pm
    Permalink

    Two editors, two deputies and various other management positions does seem top heavy for two sister daily papers with a great deal of shared content. Both papers have slimmed massively in the last couple of years. Feature content mostly only appears in the Saturday edition of the EADT and much of that is from columnists not directly employed. Most weekday editions are filled with run of the mill news stories, largely laid out by reporters on screen on pro-forma pages with a high percentage of contributed and library pictures. The Star’s content has also been slashed and the feature content is PA lifestyle stuff. In these cirumstances, the number of chiefs does seem unsustainable. I can understand that titles need a brand champion, but other groups have merged deputies and editor’s jobs so why not at Archant.

    The company has trimmed and merged senior managerial posts outside editorial in recent years, so why doesn’t it wield the axe at the top here.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • January 12, 2012 at 5:08 pm
    Permalink

    It depends where you are and how good the managers are. To be frank, some editors, deputies, associates, whatever title they are given, don’t deserve their money, they are seeing out their days thinking ‘the print decline won’t affect me.’ Far better to get young blood in. There’s a dwindling amount of young people with good ideas – more and more are getting sacked or getting out, leaving the dinosaurs in charge of a changing world. That didn’t work out very well for the last lot of dinosaurs. You earn respect by your actions, not by your titles.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • January 12, 2012 at 5:35 pm
    Permalink

    Get rid of them all, the newspaper would still be published. Give the editorial team much more responsibility.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • January 12, 2012 at 5:42 pm
    Permalink

    The role of the weekly editor has diminished over the years. Very few editors these days actually edit their papers. They ‘manage’ the editorial department, leaving the editing of their titles to trusty deputies or content editors. Editors may like to have a say about the front page but generally he / she will only be aware of the content of that week’s paper after publication. So the case against editors is proven. Best to get rid of the position, bring in an editor-in-chief (to take the legal rap) and let him / her ‘manage’ the staff of any number of titles (does it really matter?), save lots of cash. Come to think of it, get rid of deputy editors as well, save even more money. Ah, maybe that’s why I’m a redundant deputy editor…

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • January 13, 2012 at 10:27 am
    Permalink

    furryoldbadger is spot on. You can even keep your firm’s solicitors and use them a bit more. At my north east paper, our deputy editor used to spend days/ weeks on awards and was proud of his lack of knowledge on how to sub or even use Tera. The modern newspaper needs more people on the ground doing and less at the top criticising. So you can axe one deputy instead of two subs, and at least offer a sub the chance to report. Sorry deputies/ editors but you older ones have been at the helm when you could have changed things for the better but didn’t have the bottle/ gumption to do so

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)