Blog Post

NYT Lays Off 100 On The Business Side; Cuts Salary For All Non-Union Staff, Including Sulzberger

Stay on Top of Emerging Technology Trends

Get updates impacting your industry from our GigaOm Research Community
Join the Community!

The New York Times Company (NYSE: NYT) is laying off some 100 NYT business-side employees and cutting non-union salaries across the board. NYFishbowl has the memo, which also outlines a “temporary” 5 percent salary reduction for all non-union employees at the NYT. In an attempt at softening the blow, NYT execs say staffers can take an additional 10 personal days off over the next nine months. The memo contains a promise that salaries will return to current levels next year, adding, “Of course, such a decision depends on the state of our business.”

Staci adds: The salary cuts affect all non-union employees across the company — including executive officers — but at varying degrees. The only exception, according to the company, is the International Herald Tribune, which is taking other cost-cutting measures. NYTCo didn’t mention the layoffs in an SEC filing but said the salary cuts would cover executive officers as well. Effective April 1, the salaries of Chairman Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., CEO Janet Robinson and others will drop 5 percent. According to the 2009 proxy, Sulzberger’s base salary for 2008 was $1,087,000, while Robinson’s was $1 million. Sulzberger and Robinson distributed their own company-wide memo.

The salary hits for non-union employees differ by division. From the filing: “The salaries of these employees at the Company

2 Responses to “NYT Lays Off 100 On The Business Side; Cuts Salary For All Non-Union Staff, Including Sulzberger”

  1. Nathanr

    Why isn't anyone calling for the union to offer up their own cut? Unions should work both ways and in this case, if they don't offer up a cut, they risk alienating their colleagues, demonstrating how much they do not understand the plight of the company and really dont care if the NYTimes survives…

  2. I have noticed the NY Times is carrying more ads in recent days. Back in Jan and Feb, the business section would carry no ads for days and the A section would have about 3 ad pages in the entire section.

    Starting a couple of weeks ago, the Times is carrying more ads and is looking closer to normal.

    I have not seen an explanation anywhere. I wonder if your reporters can dig out the story behind this. Is this a result of drastically cut rates or the beginnings of a recovery?