'NY Times' Cuts: Don't Call It a Furlough!

Whatever you do, don't go saying the F-word at The New York Times.

That word, of course, is "furlough," and it would seem to describe a scenario where employees of the paper are being given a pay cut (5 percent) that roughly corresponds to the reduction in days they must work this year.

But the Times doesn't want to characterize it that way because if it does, it has to comply with all kinds of pesky regulations requiring that workers given time off without pay actually get to take that time, you know, off. As the Times puts it,

The Times Company is characterizing its move with nonunion employees as a pay cut rather than a mandatory leave -- though in practice, there may be little difference -- to avoid strict federal rules governing furloughed employees. Other companies that have used furloughs have told workers, for instance, that they cannot make work-related phone calls or check work e-mail messages while on leave. Whether a cut for union employees is called a furlough will be subject to negotiation.

But Times management has already made its position clear to the union, which relayed it to its members: "The additional personal days would be paid days, not an unpaid furlough as the company's releases seemed to indicate. They would be scheduled by agreement of the employee and his or her manager. Employees will not be replaced on those days."

Management also told the union that going along with its plan will save the paper $4.5 million and likely, although not necessarily, avert the need to lay off 60 or 70 newsroom employees. Guild leadership will meet next week to weight the proposal.

In any case, the knowledge that Times staffers will spend their extra days off chained to their laptops and Blackberries should go a long way toward assuaging all that furlough envy out there.