Posts Tagged ‘doree shafrir’

Dear darlings Doree and Krucoff: Guess what? You’re both wrong about Sheila McClear.

December 3, 2008 by Maggie No Comments »

Which is excellent! For the aforementioned recently laid-off Miss McClear, that is. Who says? Why, the New York State Department of Labor, in its concerted two-year effort to crack down on employers who misclassify their workers as independent contractors!

To wit:

“UI and Independent Contractors:

If you were hired to perform services as an independent contractor, you may still be considered an employee under the law and may be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. Whether the relationship is one of employer-employee will depend on the degree of supervision, direction and control the employer has over the services.” [NYDOL]

It gets even better!

“If an employer-employee relationship exists, it does not matter how the relationship is described by the person engaging the services. For example, if an employer issues individuals a 1099 form rather than a W-2 form, the workers may still be considered employees. Even if the workers sign a statement claiming independent contractor status and waiving any rights as employees, or if they are required to obtain a DBA in order to work for that employer, those individuals may still be considered employees under the law. The Unemployment Insurance Law provides that no agreement by employees to waive their rights under the law is valid.” [Itals all moi.]

The irony, really.

doree:

youngmanhattanite:

Oh, can we stop saying Sheila was fired? It’s a layoff. You can debate the semantics but the New York State Department of Labor has a glossary for this stuff…Clearly she wasn’t “fired.” She wasn’t escorted from the building by an HR goon and told never to return (though obviously that can happen with a layoff too) but instead was given a month’s notice due to the company’s reorganization and cost-cutting. The terms of separation mean something very specific when filing for unemployment benefits and while you can collect unemployment for being “fired” under certain circumstances, Sheila’s situation is cut and dry, if also high and dry…

Sure, Sheila wasn’t fired. But she also wasn’t, technically, an employee. Gawker staffers are all contractors and as far as I know she will not be eligible for unemployment.

 

Oh, This Should Be Good…

August 25, 2008 by Maggie No Comments »

“Choire Sicha Joins Radar: Last Media Job In New York City Gladly Taken”

…Very good indeed. I mean, thank God. About time, for chrissakes.

In other news, since Choire is otherwise occupied (presumably looking for a white suit and spats to go with his fancy new title), I’ll be guest-blogging at Radar this week. I can neither confirm nor deny that Doree Shafrir, Emily Gould and Joshua David Stein will also be joining me. Disgusting, it all is, isn’t it?

 

Why I, Gawker, And Everyone Else Kicked The Edwards Affair Under The Rug. For Fun! No, Really.

August 11, 2008 by Maggie 3 Comments »

If Alex Pareene and Doree Shafrir think they can go around taking all the blame for Gawker ignoring the John Edwards story last fall, they’ve got another think coming.

The day the National Enquirer story broke on the Edwards affair (almost two weeks after Mediabistro did a nice pointed little Rielle Roundup), I had this IM conversation with a Beltway reporter:

Edwardsim-1 It went on from there. We dug around a little, but not enough. By the time we started getting anything actually new on the story, Pareene (at the time still mired at swampy Wonkette) was all over it. When you’re working for a stable of niche blogs, the thinking is it doesn’t make sense to have two sites running down the same story when they could be using that time to produce unique content. Seems reasonable, if frustrating and limiting.

Sooooo we let it go, barring the arrival of an email from Rielle Hunter herself delivering photographic evidence of her affair with the senior Senator from North Carolina. Which would have been pretty fucking sweet.

Wait! Could this mean it’s still Pareene’s fault—that speedy little devil—that Gawker didn’t stay on the story? Sigh. No such luck.

Edwardsemail1 So: Why didn’t we or anyone else stalk this juicy, potentially huge story for all it was worth, like the Enquirer? It certainly wasn’t out of party loyalty or our undying John Edwards crush—the guy’s a dick and always has been. Son-of-a-millworker, my foot and ass.

The press is stumbling all over itself to give its readers an explanation (sort of like the one I just gave above!) They run the gamut from diminishing resources and manpower to cutbacks, layoffs, the primaries, the dubious credibility of both Hunter and the Enquirer, and the fact that nobody knows a politician who hasn’t fucked around, so how is that news?

Well, it’s sure as hell news once someone sluttier than you hits it out of the park. The best excuses so far are detailed descriptions of the reporter’s long-standing personal knowledge of Hunter and her flimsy connection to the Edwards campaign. Super job! You tooootally knew! You were on the inside, man! And you did…what? Nothing? Nothing.

The reason we ignored this story is that we are idiots. I even apologize, actually. There. Now (and yes, I am that chick), as Jed Bartlett/Aaron Sorkin used to say: What’s next?

 
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes