First, welcome to our new publisher, Dick Johnston. I think he will be impressed with the work staff and work ethic exhibited regardless of trying circumstances at the Pantagraph. By the way, Dick, how about getting us back to being “The Pantagraph”? It was changed to “Pantagraph” without good rationale. I think it was done for some random design reason. That’s not a good reason to change the name of a news organization. You design with the name as a given, don’t you?
Lindus leaves with an achievement of overhauling the online product for the better. But she stretched us on our paper product, for the worse. Our sales staff suffered the most financially under her regime. Let’s see that change in course, please.
Linda also showed open hostility and insults, immediately, toward the union movement. Johnston can come in free of that baggage and, at the least, show a more reasoned approach. If he shows that, it actually may hurt the union effort. Linda provided a rally point for opposition. Nonetheless, it would be a welcome change.
Regardless of what he does, though, the central issue remains: The Guild represents bargaining power for wages and benefits. I still want that. I’m a yes vote. My vote never was contingent on us having this publisher or that. It’s about getting the best deal possible for me and my family.
Thanks for listening.
I would first like to say that it was nice that Dick Johnston actually acknowledge my presence the other night. Linda acted like the “night people” only existed when there was a mistake.
The reason why I thought an union was being organized is not just because of Linda, but because of what I would like to call corporatization.
The voice of the non-management workers seems to be getting smaller by the moment.
Unions are suppose to be kinda like a big brother.
Listen, a lot of us that work at The Pantagraph are smart people. But I’m not a negotiator by trait, or a lawyer.
I’m good at doing my job.
A union would be a good thing because it make it easier for me to concentrate on my job.
One person cannot change the order of a corporation.
By the way, did anyone look at Mr. Johnston’s background? He seems like a nice guy, but he’s never been at a newspaper for longer than a few years (all within Lee newspaper). The biggest question is…Is this guy a corporate puppet? To our knowledge the switch took hours.
I guess what I want to say is first reaction Mr. Johnston seems like a nice guy, but that doesn’t mean we should stop organizing. Lee Enterprises has become more of a corporation than an owner news publications.
First, we continue to work for a company that has a hostile attitude towards its employees. I know that we want to think Mr. Johnston, a new face, will bring improvements for us. We want to take the high road and give him a chance, as we should.
Truth is, his agenda is dictated from corporate. I have seen this happen time and time again. A new face with words of encouragement brings hope of change. He will know the evil things that happened and the people that created this disfuctional environment. He will change all that, things will going back to better days gone by. Not true , he is not here to do those things, and how long will it take us to realize that the only thing that will change for sure is the publisher change itself- nothing more nothing less.
So just as another paper welcomes Linda Lindus with high expectations, I just welcome Dick Johnston.
In light of the Lee stock options given out recently, I
noticed Linda Lindus recieved about 20,00 shares November, 2007. This must be compensation for her business decisions and her treatment of Lee employees at “Pantagraph”.
If Lee considers her service to be worthy of such compensation then I believe we can expect Dick Johnston to continue with her (Lee) agenda and be compensated likewise.
The central question remains as to why Linda has gone. I believe without question that the Union campaign in Bloomington triggered her removal in hopes of neturalizing the Union effort by offering hopes that Dick Johnston will bestow us with the benefits the Union has to offer.
Lee must not understand that we know Mr. Johnston cannot give us Union benefits. Only collectively as a group can we demand that like Linda Lindus we be shown a similar degree of respect for our efforts.
The title of our paper should never have been altered in the first place, Pulitzer knew that. With respect to our readers it presumably should not be changed now. Why subject them to the antics of our new, new owners?
Is this the real reason Dick replaced Linda Lindus?
Is masthead changing his forte and not hers?
“Not Gullible” must be right. “Lee does not understand
that we know Mr Johnston cannot give us Union benifits”.
6 comments ↓
Central Issue Remains
First, welcome to our new publisher, Dick Johnston. I think he will be impressed with the work staff and work ethic exhibited regardless of trying circumstances at the Pantagraph. By the way, Dick, how about getting us back to being “The Pantagraph”? It was changed to “Pantagraph” without good rationale. I think it was done for some random design reason. That’s not a good reason to change the name of a news organization. You design with the name as a given, don’t you?
Lindus leaves with an achievement of overhauling the online product for the better. But she stretched us on our paper product, for the worse. Our sales staff suffered the most financially under her regime. Let’s see that change in course, please.
Linda also showed open hostility and insults, immediately, toward the union movement. Johnston can come in free of that baggage and, at the least, show a more reasoned approach. If he shows that, it actually may hurt the union effort. Linda provided a rally point for opposition. Nonetheless, it would be a welcome change.
Regardless of what he does, though, the central issue remains: The Guild represents bargaining power for wages and benefits. I still want that. I’m a yes vote. My vote never was contingent on us having this publisher or that. It’s about getting the best deal possible for me and my family.
Thanks for listening.
I would first like to say that it was nice that Dick Johnston actually acknowledge my presence the other night. Linda acted like the “night people” only existed when there was a mistake.
The reason why I thought an union was being organized is not just because of Linda, but because of what I would like to call corporatization.
The voice of the non-management workers seems to be getting smaller by the moment.
Unions are suppose to be kinda like a big brother.
Listen, a lot of us that work at The Pantagraph are smart people. But I’m not a negotiator by trait, or a lawyer.
I’m good at doing my job.
A union would be a good thing because it make it easier for me to concentrate on my job.
One person cannot change the order of a corporation.
By the way, did anyone look at Mr. Johnston’s background? He seems like a nice guy, but he’s never been at a newspaper for longer than a few years (all within Lee newspaper). The biggest question is…Is this guy a corporate puppet? To our knowledge the switch took hours.
I guess what I want to say is first reaction Mr. Johnston seems like a nice guy, but that doesn’t mean we should stop organizing. Lee Enterprises has become more of a corporation than an owner news publications.
First, we continue to work for a company that has a hostile attitude towards its employees. I know that we want to think Mr. Johnston, a new face, will bring improvements for us. We want to take the high road and give him a chance, as we should.
Truth is, his agenda is dictated from corporate. I have seen this happen time and time again. A new face with words of encouragement brings hope of change. He will know the evil things that happened and the people that created this disfuctional environment. He will change all that, things will going back to better days gone by. Not true , he is not here to do those things, and how long will it take us to realize that the only thing that will change for sure is the publisher change itself- nothing more nothing less.
So just as another paper welcomes Linda Lindus with high expectations, I just welcome Dick Johnston.
Why is Linda gone?
In light of the Lee stock options given out recently, I
noticed Linda Lindus recieved about 20,00 shares November, 2007. This must be compensation for her business decisions and her treatment of Lee employees at “Pantagraph”.
If Lee considers her service to be worthy of such compensation then I believe we can expect Dick Johnston to continue with her (Lee) agenda and be compensated likewise.
The central question remains as to why Linda has gone. I believe without question that the Union campaign in Bloomington triggered her removal in hopes of neturalizing the Union effort by offering hopes that Dick Johnston will bestow us with the benefits the Union has to offer.
Lee must not understand that we know Mr. Johnston cannot give us Union benefits. Only collectively as a group can we demand that like Linda Lindus we be shown a similar degree of respect for our efforts.
I still vote Union!
An update. We’re going back to The Pantagraph. Don’t know why. I’m not going to flatter myself and say it’s because he read my post.
And, hey, admin., we made the Illinois Times. It’s a good report.
Mr. Rose-
The title of our paper should never have been altered in the first place, Pulitzer knew that. With respect to our readers it presumably should not be changed now. Why subject them to the antics of our new, new owners?
Is this the real reason Dick replaced Linda Lindus?
Is masthead changing his forte and not hers?
“Not Gullible” must be right. “Lee does not understand
that we know Mr Johnston cannot give us Union benifits”.
Leave a Comment