« California -- Not a Judicial Hell Hole? | Main | Attorneys' Fees in Motions to Compel Arbitration »

January 21, 2008


Andrew Mitton

I agree with your post if the employer's only goal is to create a document that protects the employer in court. Those sorts of documents normally collect dust on a shelf. But if the company is trying to change its culture and create a document that employees actually read and understand, then I think the Tribune is on the right path. If employees actually read the document it just might affect their behavior and prevent bad things from happening. So the Tribune's document might end up being more valuable in the end.


Is that the best exsample you can come up with what is 'wrong' with it. At least I could read the Handbook once and understand it. Rembember this is a handbook to be read and understood by ordinary everyday workers, not Lawyers. I had to read your comment several times before I think I understood the point you are making.

Now ask yourself, who did the better job?


The handbook seemed to work okay when it was used by Local TV, LLC:


Yep, Sam's new handbook is all but identical to the handbook of Randy Michaels old company.

Since Randy was CEO of LocalTV before joining Tribune, it's not like he can be accused of plagarization, just creative re-use.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Blog powered by Typepad