A long time ago, in a workplace, far, far away, I worked for a guy who was fixated on the latest management trends. He wanted to be seen as cool, hip and cutting edge even if the organizational changes he was pushing didn’t always make much sense.

This was a guy who always came up with nonsensical new job titles and pretentious buzzwords for workforce practices, stuff that you see all too often in today’s workplace. I give him credit for being ahead of the times with that kind of nonsense, but there was something else he was ahead of the curve with too—making current employees reapply for their jobs.

Back in the early 1990s, he pushed a reorganization of the newspaper newsroom where I worked—a “newsroom without walls,” he called it—that basically meant eliminating all the reporting beats and most of the newsroom jobs. Instead, he came up with a new list of beats and jobs and forced everyone to reapply for their job even if it was a job that wasn’t changing.

There was certainly some logic to eliminating some positions and creating new ones, but the process of making everyone reapply sent the anxiety level among all of those having to reapply (basically, the entire newsroom staff) off the charts. It caused a huge amount of worry, grief and lost sleep among many who weren’t sure what this process of reapplying for work REALLY meant. I can’t recall anyone actually losing their job in the process, but it was not a good way to run a railroad, so to speak. It unduly tortured a lot of good people who didn’t deserve someone on high to be cavalierly fiddling with their life and livelihood.

I was thinking about this all again today when I ran across a story in The New York Times that described how a similar process was going on at a newspaper called The Journal News in Westchester County, New York. According to the Times story, “The suburban newspaper is at the vanguard of the industry: reporters at The Journal News don’t work in a newsroom, they are part of an ‘Information Center’; they don’t cover beats, they cover ‘topics’; and in a new wrinkle to an old story, the staff was not being laid off, but becoming part of a ‘comprehensive restructuring plan.’ Specifically, the 288 news and advertising employees at The Journal News were told that jobs were being redefined and that they all would need to reapply for the new positions and that by the time the re-org music stopped, 70 of them would be without jobs. What fresh hell is this?”

The Journal News is a Gannett newspaper (Gannett is the largest newspaper publisher in the country), and in the name of full disclosure, I should tell you that I worked for Gannett newspapers in Montana and Hawaii for five years in the ’90s. Gannett is known for its tough (some might say heavy-handed) way of dealing with employees, but making workers go through this surpasses anything I ever saw happen during my time working for the company.

I think the New York Times story really captured the essence of how surreal this must have been for the workers involved.

“For the last three weeks, employees at The Journal News have lived in a netherworld in which they were asked to justify their existence in a changing, shrinking world,” the Times story said. “After filling out an application on … a corporate Web site, that asked them about their new-media skills, among other things, and then being interviewed by corporate human resources executives pulled in by Gannett, they were called up to the third floor of the offices in Westchester last Thursday and given an offer letter in a thin white envelope—‘Thank you for your participation in the restructuring of the Information Center department at The Journal News. I am pleased to extend you an offer.   … ’—or a much thicker manila envelope explaining their departure and severance.”

The story has to be read to be believed, but it makes me wonder: Who in their right mind chooses to torture their workforce this way? Layoffs are bad enough, but to put people through this process where they have to pitch themselves for a job they have been doing—a job that someone upstairs has probably already made a decision about anyway—qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment.

Having been through this process myself, take it from me when I say that torturing your workers like this is bad in about every way possible. And every time I think I’ve seen just about every bad way to treat people during this Big, Bad Recession, I stumble across something even worse.

Making workers reapply for their jobs? It’s unimaginatively bad in this environment, but unfortunately, merely a sign of times and more evidence that as bad as things have been for workers, we may still not have hit bottom just yet.

Get my latest blog updates on human resources and workforce management news by following me on Twitter.