Will Historic Vermont Newspaper Bite The Dust?

The Rutland Herald in better days, winning
the Pulitze Prize for editorials in 2001. 

UPDATE:

The situation still is mirky at the Rutland Herald, with management still not really explaining what's going on.

As you saw before this update, pay checks for reporters and staff bounced, and there are other signs of a sinking financial ship at the nation's oldest family owned newspaper.

A newspaper that stresses transparancy sure isn't demonstrating it.

Management finally did have a meeting with staff Monday. Such a meeting had been previously delayed

Editor in chief Rob Mitchell would only release a statement to the media, and not take further questions.

Mitchell said the financial picture "looks worse from the outside than it is," and "At this point, there are still things we can't talk about, for a variety of reasons."

Mitchell said the Rutland Herald has a future.

Let's hope so.

Meanwhile, Alan Keays, the editor who was fired for wanting to pursue the story of what's going on with the Herald's finances over the objection of management, spoke out to Vermont Public Radio.

Keays said:

"This is actually the first day since I left college that I haven't had a job in journalism. I had to do the story, I just wish there was a way that the management would have trusted us to do it in a fair way and in a credible way.  I wish they would have trusted me and the staff to do that."

PREVIOUS DISCUSSION

There's a soon-to-be not so daily, once venerable newspaper in Vermont called the Rutland Herald that might be tottering on the edge of its existence.

If it is about to close, it'll be one of the nation's oldest newspapers to fold.

It started in 1794 and has been a fixture in central Vermont ever since. It even won a Pulitzer Prize in 2001 for its editorials on civil unions, which was a precursor to gay marriage.

It's plain, though, that the iconic Rutland Herald is in trouble. Like many newspapers nationwide, the Herald has been suffering for years.  
  
The Rutland Herald recently announced it was only going to be published  four days a week, instead of every day.

Even worse and more ominously, staff payroll and expense checks bounced, and the management of the family-owned newspaper has not yet explained why, says a front page article in the Rutland Herald this week.

Worse, according to the Burlington weekly paper Seven Days, the Rutland Herald's editor in chief, Alan Keays, was fired Friday afternoon, either for approving running the story, or for OK'ing another follow up story he'd planned for today's paper.

The people doing the firing were Rutland Herald owner R. John Mitchell and publisher Catherine Nelson.

Seven Day says so far, Mitchell and Nelson are not returning their phone calls and emails.

That Keays  might have been fired for OK'ing reporting on something that was definitely of interest to readers of the Rutland Herald is a no-no.

True, no business likes their dirty laundry aired to the public, but newspapers are a special case. Journalism is supposed to be all about transparency. When the owner of a newspaper interfered with editorial decisions like this, it's not good. 

Keay's dismissal prompted a walkout by much of the rest of Rutland Herald's staff, says Seven Days, but I think enough people returned to put out a paper. Seven Days, at last check was calling it a "fluid situation" at the Herald.

VTDigger.org said staffers were convinced to come back after Mitchell said he might un-fire Keays. But it was unclear as of this writing if that actually happened.

Morale must be SO wonderful at the Rutland Herald. A popular editor is canned, the staff wants to revolt, and they are not getting paychecks, at least not in a timely manner.

The payroll problems that started in July seem to be ongoing, too. VTDigger,org says no direct deposit payroll checks were available Friday, but the Herald issued checks without full payroll deduction information.

Some employees cashed their checks at the company bank because they worried about getting bounce fees if they tried it at their own banks, says VTDigger.org

Yikes!

By the way, the Rutland Herald might get in trouble with the Vermont Department of Labor because of this payroll mess if it keeps going on, says VTDigger.

As was the case with Seven Days reporter, the publisher and owner of the Rutland Herald did not return numerous calls from VTDigger.

Reporters and other staffers at the Herald also said they have been kept in the dark about the financial crisis, too.

There's journalistic transparency for ya!

In general, newspapers have not figured out how to stay profitable when everything is available at the click of a mouse.

Like it or not, it gets more and more apparent every year that newspapers are passe.  At least in traditional forms, like, you know, actual newspapers.

The newspapers are on line, too, but being online apparently isn't profitable for the papers.

In 2013, I was booted from my position as a reporter for the Burlington (Vermont) Free Press as part of cost cutting moves by Gannett, the Free Press parent company.

You don't realize when you're in it how bad things get amid repeated cost cutting until the issue is forced, like in my case when I was finally laid off. I actually felt better after being let go.

I still miss the daily rush of trying to meet deadlines, explaining in written words the issues of the day in a way that was compelling and interesting to people, directly questioning and holding accountable state and even national leaders, and being among the most informed people I know.

The reason I still write blog posts like this one is I like to have that writing outlet still in play

I also know toward the end of my reporting days that  I was glorifying things.

I noticed the difference right away after I left the Free Press and still do. I've changed careers and now work at Gardener's Supply and also do independent work as a gardener.

No offense to the people at the Burlington Free Press, (though some offense intended at the parent company Gannett) I frankly have to say that since I left the Freeps three years ago, I now sometimes come home from work tired, but I never come home from work angry.

Still, I feel pangs of sadness when I see the Burlington Free Press as a shadow of its former self. Even worse watching the Rutland Herald implode.

I grew up around Rutland, Vermont, so that paper was a daily part of my existence for decades.

The world changes, industry changes, some things fall by the wayside. But I'm already think I should start mourning a Vermont institution that's been around for something like 220 years.

USA Freedom Kids Just Got Screwed By Trump Like Everybody Else

Looks like the Trump campaign stiffed the
ever-popular U.S. Freedom Kids and is not
paying them for their viral performance at
one of his rallies.  

In January,  I feature a troupe of youngsters called USA Freedom Kids who gave a performance at Donald Trump rally that caused quite a stir and became a viral sensation.

The USA Freedom Kids performed, their, depending on your perspective, a cute, earnest or cringe-worthy song and dance called "Freedom's Call."

Trump was a big fan then.

Now, however, like almost everything else involving Donald Trump, the situation with the  USA Freedom Kids and Trump involves a lawsuit.

Who knows how it will work out, but there was apparently a series of verbal agreements involving the girls' performance that the dad of one of the performers, Jeff Popick, said were broken by the Trump campaign, says the Washington Post and other media outlets.

Popick had asked for $2,500 for the girl's performance. The Trump campaign counter-offered with a proposal to let the kids set up a table to pre-sell their albums and other merchandise.

Who knew these USA Freedom Kids thing was such a business!?

The campaign never did set up a table for them so they lost out.  Peptic paid for promotional material they never used and lost out on promotional time at what turned out to be the nonexistent table.

Later, says the Washington Post, the Trump campaign wanted, at the last minute just after he dropped out of the Fox News debate back in January.

Trump would go to an Iowa rally instead, and his campaign wanted the girls to perform there.

Says the Washington Post:

"With the promise that the exposure from the event would be 'huge,' Popick readily agreed and the kids and their parents packed up for a direct flight to Chicago and a long drive to Iowa. 

It wasn't to be. When the plane landed, Popick had a message from the campaign staffer indicating that thre was a change of plan."

The campaign allowed the girls and Popick to attend the rally, but were not allowed to talk to the media. Then they put them right next to the media area. Reporters all tried to ask questions, and Popick said he had to be like a jerk and tell them to buzz off, on orders of the Trump campaign.

Well, Trump's a jerk so I guess it fits that he wants everybody else around him to be a jerk, too.

Since then, Popick has been contacting the Trump campaign constantly trying to get paid. After all, Popick had to pay for the flights and travel to Iowa for the kids. Plus theres' that famous performance in Pensecola. Shouldn't the campaign pay them since they're the ones that origionally wanted them?

No deal. They're just blowing him off.

That's the Trump M.O., too. If he owes somebody money, either blow them off, or countersue the people trying to get paid.  Check out this exhaustive USA Today investigation of how cheap and irresponsible Trump is when it comes to paying people he hires.

So now, Popick is getting ready to sue the Trump campaign.

Incredibly, even after all this, Popick tells the Washington Post he is not sure whether he will support Trump for president.

Maybe, Popick says, he was bad to him, but perhaps he'll be good for the country.

With that reputation for stiffing people? I doubt it.

For those who want a refresher on the odd U.S. Freedom Kids performance last winter, here ya go!

The New Reality: You MUST Always Work

Add caption

I didn't work at all, at any of my jobs, on anything for a couple days last week.

I had one of those weird sudden gastrointestinal illnesses that leave you unable to do ANYTHING.

I was lucky. I had the day off from my regular job, and even if I didn't they would have been understanding had I called in sick, and it wouldn't have threatened my future prospects at the company.

I'm also self employed at another job, and now I've fallen behind. But I'm catching up with that now,   so I'm lucky there, too.

But my bit of good luck with jobs and illness is going away fast for the rest of us, it seems.  The way I see it, getting sick to some minds in corporate America is a fireable offense, and falling behind on work, even if no human can do the amount of work demanded in one day, is another Off With The Head crime.

If I were to believe a lot of what I'm reading lately, you are a scumbag if you do not work 24/7. I know that's not true in reality, but in order to survive in this country nowadays, it IS true, unfortunately.

Don't get me wrong. Working very hard is terrific. It gives me a sense of accomplishment. You earn a little cash. You have a sense of pride for contributing.

Everybody must pull their weight. I don't have patience for lazy people, either. So work hard, everyone!

However, there's such a thing as too much of a good thing, and there's a lot of "too much" out there.

That was highlighted last week by that New York Times article on the workplace culture at Amazon that made such a splash.

Apparently, white collar workers at Amazon have to be superhuman. One employee felt compelled to work four all nighters in a row.   One person was pretty much fired because she had the temerity to contract thyroid cancer.

Oe woman was forced to go on a business trip the day after her miscarriage.

NPR, discussing the article, said, "One ex-employee's fiance became so concerned about her nonstop working night after night that he would drive to the Amazon campus at 10 p.m. and dial her cellphone until she agreed to come home. When they took a vacation to Florida, she spent every day at Starbucks using the wireless connection to get work done."

Of course, the white collar workers at Amazon have it easy, compared with some of their past history for blue collar workers in their warehouses.

Amazon had warehouse workers toil in overheated summertime warehouses where temperatures exceeded 100 degrees. Instead of cooling the air and giving the workers a few chances to recover from the heat, Amazon famously stationed a few ambulances outside a Pennsylvania warehouse to cart out heat stroke victims.

Then, they'd just replace the victims with somebody else, unless the poor overheated souls made a quick recovery. Pretty sickly Darwinian, no?

An emergency room doctor finally called federal authorities to report an "unsafe environment" after he treated several warehouse workers. Under pressure, Amazon finally put in a littl air conditioning. At least sort of.

Why did these workers put up with it? Or at least try to? There weren't many jobs in the area, especially when this problem peaked in 2011. So they took their chances.

I guess that's the way things are nowadays. You do what you have to do, given the stagnating wages and iffy job prospects for most of us who aren't in the 1 percent.

Also, despite Jeb Bush's assertion, most Americans really do want to work hard. Again, that's a virtue. But when does it become too much?

As the New Yorker pointed out, the white collar grind at Amazon isn't unique. Employees at elite investment banks and law firms often put in 16-hour days and work weekends.  They get paid a lot, so you can't feel as bad for them as beleaguered minimum wage workers, but still.

Workers at various dot com and other industries are increasingly saying they are being exploited. You know work around the clock, be on call all the time, but not being rewarded enough financially for their efforts.

The Guardian's economic editor, Larry Elliot, cites the decline of unions as a symptom of a return of the extreme pressure on workers last seen in the 19th century.

Unions "were originally formed as a respose to exploitation by 19th century mill owners..... (Keeping) a cowed workforce under the lash with non-stop pressure, bullying and psychological warfare, Bezos is the 21st century equivalent."

Which makes me wonder if the seeds of a new labor movement are starting. It's hard to tell, but I do see news of more and more unionization efforts at various workplaces.

At last check, unionization rates were still declining, but for how long?

It seems like the presidential candidacy of Bernie Sanders has really taken off in large part because of his long standing campaign to raise the fortunes of workers and to reign in the 1 percent.

It's morning, and I'm getting ready to go to work now. I'm looking forward to it. I want to have a very productive day, and not slack on the  job. Most people feel this way about their work.

The company I work for is being fair to me. Maybe because it's employee owned and we're all in this together?  Maybe my choosing to work for an employee owned firm is a bit of a rebellion against the 1 percent taking everything from their workers, I don't know.

I know it's kind of bad form to whine about the boss man making so much more than you do. But there comes a time when you don't want to cross the line from being an employee to being a slave or indentured servant.

That's why there's so much excitement about Bernie Sanders, and such a strong reaction to that New York Times Amazon article.

No You Can't Give Your Low Wage Workers' Salaries To Big Banks

A McDonald's franchise insisted on paying this women
only with a fee-laden debit card. So she sued.  

There's been some good U.S. Supreme Court rulings in the past week, but another ruling, from a lower court in Pennsylvania about a month ago, gave me another reason to be happy.

The court said that a McDonald's franchise owner could not pay the employees there in the form of Chase Bank debit cards.

As we well know, McDonald's employees tend not to be super rich 1 percenters. So they need every penny of their paychecks.

According to Consumerist, the debit card pay violated a Pennsylvania laws that says "wages shall be paid in lawful money of the United States or check."

The legal question was whether a debit card is lawful money. It kinda is, but.....

Anyway, a woman named Natalie Gunshannon worked briefly at one of these debit card McDonald's. Briefly, because she objected to being forced to use the fee-laden debit card. Her employer said she had no choice.

Oh, but she did. She quit and went straight to a lawyer. Gunshannon is sort of a Norma Rae of McDonald's, at least in Pennsylvania.

Here's how Consumerist described it:

"The 2013 complaint alleges that the McDonald's franchisee violate this law by requiring that employees accept the Chase debit card, which charged fees like $1.50 for using an ATM, $5 for over-the-countery cash withdrawals, $1 per balance inquiry and $0.75 for online bill payment."

In other words, if these McDonald's employees actually wanted to get access to their wages, they had to give some of it to Chase Bank, which, as I noted, is probably not about to run out of cash anytime soon.

Consumerist goes on, "At the same time, managers at these McDonald's were being paid through direct deposit, meaning that the were not stuck with any of these fees."

Yep, the lower wage workers had to give some of their money to the poor suffering bank, while the somewhat better paid managers got to keep all of their wages.

The judge said the debit cards violated the law because the cards are neither cash nor check.

The judge in the case also said this new technology makes for evolving case law, and state legislators are grappling with this.

Consumerist notes that Federal Reserve Regulations say that "no financial institutions or other person may require a consumer to establish an account for receipt of electronic fund transfers with a particular institution as a condition of employment or receipt of a government benefit."

In other words, an employee can choose to get a paycheck, cash, direct deposit or debit card arrangement with the bank of his or her choice, but the employer can't choose for the employee.

More than that, though, the McDonald's franchise owners were awfully scummy. Did they get some nice arrangement from Chase Bank for forcing employees to use the debit cards.

Worse than that, this is totally a reverse Robin Hood. The debit cards are classic steal from the poor and give to the rich.  (Hmm, I bet Bernie Sanders wouldn't approve of this!)