Latest news with #PBSNewsHour
RTÉ News
11-06-2025
- Business
- RTÉ News
Are 'quiet redundancies' happening in your workplace?
Analysis: Employers in Ireland are implementing 'quiet redundancies' to scale back workforces in the face of uncertainty, tariffs and AI You've heard of revenge quitting, quiet quitting, coffee badging and micro-retirement, but what about 'quiet redundancies'? According to a recent report from consultants Morgan McKinley, there's been a 'subtle shift' in how workplaces in Ireland are strategising and planning around hiring, in order to scale back their headcount in the face of uncertainty. "One emerging trend this quarter is the prevalence of ' quiet redundancies '—non-renewals, scaled-back team structures and discreet workforce adjustments that are not immediately visible in headline figures," the report noted. But what exactly are quiet redundancies and how do they show up? "If you use the American phrase it's 'quiet firing' or 'stealth layoffs'," says Trayc Keevans, Global Foreign Direct Investment Director at Morgan McKinley in Dublin. "It's a situation where a company will reduce its workforce, but it won't do it through the official redundancy means, and they won't do it in the volume that would require a public announcement. So there's a lot of ways in which it can be done, and this is where it becomes a little bit complicated." From RTÉ Brainstorm, why micro-retirement has become a new workplace trend for Gen Z & millennials Quiet redundancies can involve, for example, roles being re-drawn or phased out, or the non-renewal of contracts. "Somebody who would have been on a contract, the work is still there but that contract wouldn't be renewed and that work would be allocated to, maybe, permanent team members," says Keevans. "There could be a situation where people might have a lack of support and resources and may leave of their own volition. There may be incentives for people to retire early. In some extreme cases, maybe exclusion from certain projects that would lead to discontent and people may be leaving of their own volition." "There's a lot of cases where we have had talent speaking to us about the fact that somebody in their team has gone on maternity leave, for example, and they're not getting the replacement for them. So that work has been allocated across a number of persons, where before there would have been a contract cover for that person," she says. "We are seeing a workforce that, yes it's been streamlined, but the workforce that's in place now, a lot of them are creaking at the seams, in terms of they're doing a lot more with less resources." How was the trend identified? Morgan McKinley produces a quarterly employment monitor that measures and compares two things: the number of professionals that are on the market at that time, and the percentage difference quarter on quarter, and year on year, as well as the percentage of professional job opportunities in the market. From PBS NewsHour, what is quiet firing, and how do you know if it's happening to you? "Quarter on quarter it wasn't telling us a lot," says Keevans. "But when we looked year on year it showed us that there was 16% more professionals on the employment market looking at opportunities, versus only a 2% increase in corresponding jobs. So the rate of professionals looking for jobs was increasing faster than the number of jobs being created, and that wasn't necessarily being reflected in the unemployment rate, which was largely holding its own around [3.9% to 4.2%] year on year." What's driving the trend? Previously, when someone handed in their notice, by and large the role was being replaced, says Keevans. "The only difference might be, would there be a different profile of person required from a soft skills point of view? Was there anything that had changed in terms of the role itself that required a think-through? That was maybe as complex as it got." But from the beginning of last year the pace of hiring slowed down and "there was a much more cautious and considered approach" to hiring, she says. So instead of a role being immediately or directly replaced, "a person would hand in their notice and then the organisation would have a discussion around, are the skills that were within that position still required within the organisation? Or does the organisation require a different set of skills, a different profile of hire to go forward? And very often what you had was a completely different position from what the person who handed in their notice would be - and that slows down the pace of hiring." From RTÉ Radio 1's Morning Ireland, how Covid changed how we work and the traditional workplace This was in part a consequence of a lot of over-hiring in the Covid years. "There was a need to maybe look at right-sizing their organisation," says Keevans. "There was more consideration, more stakeholders involved in that decision, there was caution around budgets, and was this an absolute necessary hire?" In parallel, AI is an inescapable part of the conversation. It's difficult to quantify the impact that AI is having at this point, Keevans says, but elements of jobs and processes are being automated, with the result that a role might not be completely replaced [by AI] but it might "involve a reallocation of the responsibilities of a role, where some can be automated across a number of employees. With the result of that work forces were reducing in size." "Cost saving was obviously one part of it but also there was a sense that companies didn't want the negative publicity that a redundancy situation would typically give to its employer brand," she says. "Because in parallel with this streamlining of headcount there was also a need to hire new emerging skills that were critical for the business to successfully move forward and continue to be successful in its given environment." From RTÉ Radio 1's Drivetime, creatives braced to be among first casualties of AI expansion The report noted that while it's too early to pinpoint the exact drivers behind the trend, "the combination of global economic uncertainty, AI-led transformation and anticipation around US tariffs suggests companies are shifting from reactive hiring to more cautious, long-term workforce planning." US tariffs and the growing role of AI are often cited as sources of uncertainty for the employment market, says Professor Kevin Murphy from the University of Limerick. "Both of these signal employers' inability or unwillingness to make lang-term investments across the board, including investments in the workforce." Tariffs, which have become a significant factor thanks to US president Donald Trump, are a source of "particular instability" because of "near-constant changes in the scope of proposed tariffs", says Murphy. "Depending on the day, US tariffs on exports from the EU might be 10%, 20% or 50%, with no guarantee that they won't change fundamentally the next day." Unlike many workforce adjustments in the past, Murphy says the current pattern of uncertainty is hitting skilled workers in knowledge-dependent jobs more heavily. "Managers and professionals have often been insulated from changes in the job market, but the continuing development of technology that can replace some of the services they have traditionally provided is making job markets for skilled knowledge workers particularly unstable." The moves in reaction to the current global economic climate have been more than six months in play, says Keevans. Global supply chain and procurement operations are, in some cases, being retrenched back to the US for some US-headquartered businesses "and that's largely to do with taxes, tax structures and agreements that can be in place." The tariffs add an additional burden and layer to operating in Ireland, with the result that "there's probably more senior procurement talent coming on to the market than we've seen in years, because they've been highly sought after by a lot of the US multinationals setting up here," she says. Is the 'quiet redundancies' trend going to continue? "It's hard to tell. What I would say is that hiring has become more unpredictable than I think it has ever been," says Keevans. "While Ireland is still very reliant on the US for Foreign Direct Investment, disproportionate to other locations, I do think there's really good work being done by IDA to repurpose that a little bit and safeguard future investments. I've seen a lot of investments opportunities coming from other international locations which would bode very positively for future hiring here in Ireland." "One of the things that's really apparent is hiring will take more of a skills-based approach, maybe than it ever has before," she says. "So there's huge opportunities for employees to really consider the role that they're doing, and saying, where are the gaps versus how the market is moving?" There has been is an increase in internal mobility and that's back to organisations upskilling and reskilling their existing workers "There's a lot of work being done on organisational structures throughout the country - is it fit for purpose? Is it fit for where markets are going, to insulate against any risks that they may have both locally and internationally? Skills will form a big part of that." "LinkedIn has released regular data on the speed of hiring and the volume of hiring, and what they can see is that there's been reduction in speed of hiring in a number of countries, Ireland included, year on year. But what there has been is an increase in internal mobility and that's back to the focus that organisations have of upskilling and reskilling their existing workforce, understanding better what are the skills that they have within their organisation."
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
PBS sues Trump White House over executive order to cut funding
PBS filed a federal lawsuit Friday asking a court to block the May 1 executive order by the Trump White House to cut off funding to public media, calling the move a violation of the 1st Amendment. The suit from the service that airs "Sesame Street," Ken Burns documentaries and the "PBS NewsHour" for free to millions of American homes, said that Congress has repeatedly protected PBS from political interference by filtering its funds through the Corp. for Public Broadcasting, which is not a federal agency. "The [executive order] makes no attempt to hide the fact that it is cutting off the flow of funds to PBS because of the content of PBS programming and out of a desire to alter the content of speech." NPR, which also receives CPB funding, filed a suit on similar grounds on Tuesday. Read more: PBS and NPR on edge over FCC letter and Trump budget scrutiny The White House alleges that PBS has "zero tolerance for non-leftist viewpoints." Trump's order called for an end to government dollars for CPB, the taxpayer-backed entity that has provided funding to NPR and PBS for decades through Congress. Trump called the public media outlets 'left wing propaganda.' The White House press release announcing the order — titled "Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media" — contained 19 bullet points citing news coverage and other content by NPR and PBS that prompted the action. The PBS suit says the data the White House cited to support that view are inaccurate and misrepresent the balanced range of viewpoints presented on PBS programs. The White House has also asserted that government funding of broadcast media is no longer necessary in an era when consumers have a vast array of platforms for information and entertainment. PBS was founded when most of the country only had access to the three commercial broadcast networks and a handful of other TV stations. PBS' suit also says that, regardless of any policy disagreements the administration may have over the role of public television, "our Constitution and laws forbid the President from serving as the arbiter of content of PBS's programming, including by attempting to defund PBS." Sign up for our Wide Shot newsletter to get the latest entertainment business news, analysis and insights. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
30-05-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
PBS sues Trump White House over executive order to cut funding
PBS filed a federal lawsuit Friday asking a court to block the May 1 executive order by the Trump White House to cut off funding to public media, calling the move a violation of the 1st Amendment. The suit from the service that airs 'Sesame Street,' Ken Burns documentaries and the 'PBS NewsHour' for free to millions of American homes, said that Congress has repeatedly protected PBS from political interference by filtering its funds through the Corp. for Public Broadcasting, which is not a federal agency. 'The [executive order] makes no attempt to hide the fact that it is cutting off the flow of funds to PBS because of the content of PBS programming and out of a desire to alter the content of speech.' NPR, which also receives CPB funding, filed a suit on similar grounds on Tuesday. The White House alleges that PBS has 'zero tolerance for non-leftist viewpoints.' Trump's order called for an end to government dollars for CPB, the taxpayer-backed entity that has provided funding to NPR and PBS for decades through Congress. Trump called the public media outlets 'left wing propaganda.' The White House press release announcing the order — titled 'Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media' — contained 19 bullet points citing news coverage and other content by NPR and PBS that prompted the action. The PBS suit says the data the White House cited to support that view are inaccurate and misrepresent the balanced range of viewpoints presented on PBS programs. The White House has also asserted that government funding of broadcast media is no longer necessary in an era when consumers have a vast array of platforms for information and entertainment. PBS was founded when most of the country only had access to the three commercial broadcast networks and a handful of other TV stations. PBS' suit also says that, regardless of any policy disagreements the administration may have over the role of public television, 'our Constitution and laws forbid the President from serving as the arbiter of content of PBS's programming, including by attempting to defund PBS.'
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
NPR CEO rips Trump order to defund as ‘retaliation,' insists media outlet is 'non-partisan'
NPR CEO Katherine Maher assured PBS on Wednesday that her outlet is "non-partisan" following President Donald Trump's latest executive order seeking to defund the station. In an interview on "PBS NewsHour," the NPR boss trashed Trump's executive order to "cease Federal funding for NPR," calling it "viewpoint discrimination" and saying that Trump is just taking it out on NPR because it goes against his views. "And so, it is a textbook example of viewpoint discrimination from a First Amendment standpoint," she said, adding, "Essentially, by blocking funding to NPR and PBS, it is a form of retaliation against our organizations for airing editorial programming that the president might disagree with." Boise State Public Radio Chief Fears Service Cuts If Trump Funding Ban Succeeds Trump signed the order earlier this month which mandated that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and other federal agencies stop funding NPR and other public media outlets like PBS. The text of the order read, "NPR and PBS have fueled partisanship and left-wing propaganda with taxpayer dollars, which is highly inappropriate and an improper use of taxpayers' money, as President Trump has stated." Read On The Fox News App Maher's outlet, joined by three public Colorado stations — Colorado Public Radio, Aspen Public Radio and KSUT — filed a lawsuit against the order in federal court on Tuesday. In a statement, the NPR CEO said, "The Executive Order is a clear violation of the Constitution and the First Amendment's protections for freedom of speech and association, and freedom of the press." 5 Things Veteran Npr Editor Exposed In Stunning Criticism Of Own Employer's Liberal Bias During the PBS interview on Wednesday, Maher suggested that Trump's executive order violated "safeguards" established by the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 that keep "public media independent from government influence." PBS has not joined NPR's suit but said it is weighing legal options, among others. "PBS is considering every option, including taking legal action, to allow our organization to continue to provide essential programming and services to member stations and all Americans," PBS spokesman Jeremy Gaines said earlier this week. PBS NewsHour anchor Geoff Bennett asked Maher about accusations that NPR promotes a liberal bias, bringing up Republicans' claims, as well as those of former NPR editor Uri Berliner. Click Here For More Coverage Of Media And Culture Berliner, who quit NPR in 2024, blew the whistle on the outlet in an essay for The Free Press that same year, slamming NPR for its "absence of viewpoint diversity." Maher responded to the critiques, declaring, "Well, first of all, I respond by saying we're a non-partisan news organization. We seek to be able to provide a range of different viewpoints in terms of who we bring on air, the stories that we tell." "My view is that is a mischaracterization of our work. We do not seek to favor any political party at all. We seek to ensure that Americans have a wide range of perspectives available to them," she added. In response to Maher's comments, a White House spokesperson told Fox News Digital: "The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is creating media to support a particular political party on the taxpayers' dime. Therefore, the President is exercising his lawful authority to limit funding to NPR and PBS. The President was elected with a mandate to ensure efficient use of taxpayer dollars, and he will continue to use his lawful authority to achieve that objective."Original article source: NPR CEO rips Trump order to defund as 'retaliation,' insists media outlet is 'non-partisan'
CNBC
29-05-2025
- Politics
- CNBC
High school sports at PBS stations could be at risk with potential federal funding cuts
High school sports games and related coverage have become some of the most popular local programs on PBS stations across the U.S., especially in states without professional sports. PBS stations in states like South Dakota, Arkansas and Nebraska have spent years bulking up on high school sports programming — mainly championship coverage — in a bid to broaden their local offerings. The content has led to a bigger audience for public broadcasters. Live sports on every level tend to boost TV and streaming viewership, and that's especially true when hometown athletes are being aired to local communities. In many cases, it's even led to increased donor support, according to interviews with station executives. But that programming is at risk if the federal government cuts its funding to PBS. "The Friday night lights phenomenon is real in the South, and we have all these viewers that look forward to that like you would an NFL game," said Bert Wesley Huffman, president and CEO of Georgia Public Broadcasting. Select regular-season high school football games are aired on GPB, in addition to other sports championships. "We've watched a lot of our players go on to the professional leagues," Huffman added. PBS television stations are funded by their state governments, as well as by federal subsidies and private donors and sponsors But President Donald Trump signed an executive order earlier this month to cut federal funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting — the nonprofit corporation that stewards the government's investment for NPR, PBS and other services — alleging "biased and partisan news coverage." On Thursday, Politico reported the White House plans to soon send a "rescissions" bill to Congress, which includes cuts to NPR and PBS. This week NPR, which was also included in the executive order, sued Trump in response, arguing the order violates First Amendment protections of speech and the press. A spokesperson for PBS, which had earlier sued Trump over his move to fire some of its officials, said in a statement that "PBS is considering every option, including taking legal action, to allow our organization to continue to provide essential programming and services to member stations and all Americans." A White House spokesman said in a statement that "The President was elected with a mandate to ensure efficient use of taxpayer dollars, and he will continue to use his lawful authority to achieve that objective." While the conversation surrounding PBS has largely focused on nationally aired shows, like children's program "Sesame Street" or news mainstays like "Frontline" and "PBS News Hour," locally produced content makes up the majority of the lineup for PBS stations. "I think the challenge is so much of the debate ends up being around news [programming], which is an important part of what we do but is less than 10% of it," said Paula Kerger, PBS CEO and president. "I think most people don't realize all of our stations are locally owned, operated and governed. They're run by people who love their communities and understand them really well. They decide everything that's on their air." In a show of how far local sports broadcasting can go, one of the first TV profiles of breakout WNBA star Caitlin Clark took place on Iowa's local PBS station in 2020 when she was making a run at a state championship in her home state. Now, years later, Clark has helped lead the WNBA to record ratings nationally. Iowa began broadcasting girls' high school sports championships, including basketball, more than 10 years ago, said Andrew Batt, the executive director and general manager of the station. "Girls' sports weren't being produced or broadcast consistently," Batt said. "We found an underserved audience there at a time prior to the explosion of interest in women's athletics." While Iowa has a number of businesses that underwrite its sports coverage, a loss of any federal or state funding "would seriously undermine our ability to have the staff and the resources" to produce sports programming, Batt said. Other state PBS executives said they and their viewers are concerned about potential cuts in funding. "It would be a disaster for us; it would be an absolute disaster," said Courtney Pledger, the executive director and CEO of Arkansas PBS. "If we lost CPB funding, sports would probably go and we would be limited in the things that we can make and the things that we could do." Arkansas' PBS receives about 40% of its funding from the state legislature, which mostly covers salaries and benefits and a small part of operations. The remainder of the operations are funded by federal subsidies or donations. Nebraska Public Media gets about 16% of its budget from the federal government. The station offers a variety of local high school and other sports programming, and is particularly known for its volleyball coverage. "One of the very first stations I visited was Nebraska, and for them, sports coverage is big time. One of the first big HD mobile trucks I actually saw was owned by Nebraska," Kerger said. Kerger also noted that some stations would be more affected than others if they were to lose federal subsidies. For those that count less than 10% of their budget from the federal government, the loss in funding would be "a hit," but for others that could lose up to 40% of their budget, "it's more existential." "I was speaking with someone today who said she has a staff of 18, and if they lose funding, they'd have to cut 10 people," Kerger said. While the executive order from the Trump administration has drawn concerns, budget fights are not new for most stations. "I've been doing this for over 36 years," said Julie Overgaard, executive director of South Dakota Public Broadcasting. "I've been through more budget funding fights than I like to admit." Overgaard added that "even in a very red state," budget cuts have been unpopular, largely because of the public outcry about sports cuts. SDPB recently faced a potential $3.6 million budget cut proposed by former Gov. Kristi Noem — who is now secretary of Homeland Security. In March, members of the legislature's main budget committee voted against the cut. Republican South Dakota state Rep. Liz May reportedly vowed to keep SDPB funding safe "because I have got to watch basketball." SDPB receives $2.2 million in federal funding, and $5.6 million from the state. While the state dollars cover most of the infrastructure costs, the money that comes through the CPB is what pays for most production costs and local coverage, according to Overgaard. The broadcaster has been airing high school sports championships for more than 20 years, and other state directors credit Overgaard as their inspiration for adding sports content. Pledger of Arkansas said she ended up talking to Overgaard at an event years ago about high school sports. "I thought that is something that would really work in Arkansas. It turned out to be one of those things that everybody loves, but isn't necessarily a moneymaking venture so commercial networks aren't going to really commit to high school sports," Pledger said. PBS stations often see a spike in viewership during games. The stations also air the games via streaming and on their websites outside of state lines, allowing extended family members to watch. Overgaard said streaming hasn't hurt the networks. In some instances, traditional TV broadcasts are the best option for viewers in rural areas that still don't have broadband connections — and in other instances the addition of digital platforms has just meant more viewers who wouldn't normally watch PBS, she said. "I joke that some times of the year public broadcasting is the only thing on in every South Dakota bar," Overgaard said.
