More 'Times' Buyouts Already? Not So Fast

Did The New York Times manage to slip a coded announcement of more staff cuts by everybody but the New York Post?

The tabloid claims the Times said "it will slash more jobs amid sinking profit and a weakening economy" in yesterday's second-quarter earnings release. But there's nothing about further jobs cuts in the Times's own story, nor in The Wall Street Journal's.

The Post seems to have deduced the supposed cuts from the Times Company's statement that the cost of buyouts in 2008 will be higher than previously forecast -- between $40 million and $50 million, up from $30 million to $35 million.

But as I noted yesterday, and as a Times spokeswoman further clarifies today, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. The Times Co. has already spent $38.8 million this year on buyout packages, and "there is very likely to be expense associated with the previously announced buyouts" during the third and fourth quarters, says the spokeswoman.

Of course, the company isn't ruling out further workforce reductions, and rumors, reliable or not, are already circulating that one is in the works. But if that happens, the Times Co. will probably have to adjust its buyout guidance upwards again, unless the next round of trimming is much smaller than the last one, which claimed 100 newsroom jobs.

By the way, the Post's copy editors seem quite fond of the headline they used on today's story: "The Worst of Times: Price Hikes & More Job Cuts at Gray Lady." They can't seem to stop using it for stories about the paper.

-"The Worst of Times: Staff Braces for Layoffs as Buyouts Fall Short," April 25, 2008

-"The Worst of Times," June 15, 2007

-"Worst of Times: Staff to Choose Between Pay, Benefit Cuts," March 12, 2005

-"The Worst of Times: In-House Report Blasts Management, Culture," July 31, 2003

Or maybe they're just big Charles Dickens fans? If so, may I suggest "Hard Times" as a change of pace? The Post hasn't used that one on a story about the Times since Dec. 27, 2000.