[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Entercom imposes contract on AFTRA

First off, the bureau statistic for $44k was "average wage" not "household
income." http://www.mnwfc.org/lmi/rankings/rankfg16.htm

I guess I am not making my points clearly but Dave, I guess you don't read
the business pages or realize what is going on in America and Massachusetts
right now.

I work for a newspaper company. Two years ago, when the economy was so
called "good," many of us accepted pay freezes to keep our jobs and keep
others in our company from being laid off.
Many towns in this state are considering going to their teacher's unions and
admin staff and asking them to take pay freezes and cuts to keep layoffs
from occurring.
Why shouldn't we expect this in other industries?
Entercomm wants their employees to take pay cuts and freezes - just like
everyone else in the country is facing - to keep the maximum amount of
people employed and keep the company solvent. This is a no brainer. The
employees can take the freeze or cut, cut in benes, whatever, or they can be
easily replaced.

For years, all I have heard from corporate politicians and big media pundits
is that people have to deal with the free market and learn to compete.
Factories have been sent overseas for cheaper labor decimating towns and
destroying families. Don't matter, they said, you have to learn to compete.
Now, radio, TV, and other "professional" industries are being asked to take
pay and benefit cuts to keep the companies, towns, whatever, solvent - just
like everyone else has had to do, and NOW people are surprised? Get a grip.
The employees of Entercomm and others can adjust like the rest of us have
had to do or lose their  jobs. It sucks but it is as simple as that. Deal
with it.

Lastly, there are a whole slew of people in the radio industry who would
gladly work for $43,000. Damn, for years when I was shopping my demo to
stations, I would have accepted a lot less than that to do radio new. Hell,
I still do radio for free [!] and I make a fraction of that working as a
newspaper editor. I would gladly read radio news for $43,000.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Faneuf" <tklaundry@juno.com>
To: <radiotony@attbi.com>
Cc: <bri@bostonradio.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: Entercom imposes contract on AFTRA

> On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 19:04:04 -0500 "tony schinella" <radiotony@attbi.com>
> writes:
> > First off, I didn't say they were only working six minutes, I said
> > they were
> > only on the air for six minutes.
> Dave:
> So you only have to pay people for the actual time on air?
> Tony:
> > I know what goes on in WRKO's news department since I have been over
> > there
> > to cut ads before. But most of the work is behind the scene,
> > preparing text
> > or working on stories, not broadcasting for an hour, that was my
> > point.
> Dave:
> Most of a reporter/anchor's job is done off-air yep, and you are paying
> for their expertise both on the air and off air.  I have also observed
> the anchors/reporters at WRKO and they are among the best still working
> in the business.
> Tony:
> > well, some of the "talent" aren't even making $100,000 at WRKO so
> > why would
> > the news reporter make over $50,000 and why would they cry about
> > making
> > between $43-50k when most in the industry either AREN'T working or
> > CAN'T
> > find work - in addition, even more people in other industries aren't
> > working?
> Dave:
> So you want to penalize an experienced professional because people in
> other industries are unemployed?  I fail to see the logic in this one,
> should everyone take a pay cut when the unemployment figures go up?  Does
> everyone get a pay raise when unemployment is down?   As for some of the
> "talent" not making 100K a year, what has that got to do with hiring the
> best talent available for news?    WRKO afterall bills itself as a News
> and Talk station.
> Tony:
> > From the Citizen's Housing and Planning Association: "In the Boston
> > metropolitan area, a family needs to earn $42,040 annually to afford
> > an
> > average 2 bedroom apartment and $52,560 to afford an average 3
> > bedroom
> > apartment."
> > But what this doesn't take into account is that the majority of
> > people in
> > Boston don't live alone or on one salary - they have roommates or
> > sign-oths
> > who also work, lowering the amount of money ONE person needs to live
> > in the
> > metro area to earn.
> Dave:
> That means if you are married with children, just to afford an apartment
> you have to give up hope of sending you kid(s) to college, or buying a
> home, or taking vacations...because you can forget about saving money and
> getting ahead.
> Tony:
> The average wage in Massachusetts in 2000 was
> > $44,326,
> > according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. So, the average wage
> > earner
> > could easily afford a two-bedroom in the metro area, by themselves.
> Dave:
> I don't have the document in front of me, but you might be looking at the
> average Household income.  That is a far cry from the per capita income
> which I believe in Massachusetts is slightly over 20K
> Tony:
> > However, rents are thankfully coming down. I saw a two bedroom
> > apartment in
> > Winchester last week for $1,400. I knew about a three bedroom in
> > Arlington
> > for $1,500 that was recently rented by an acquaintance. We pay
> > $1,000 for a
> > two bedroom in Somerville and had a big one bedroom in Mission Hill
> > for
> > $1,000 two years ago. So, if you look, you can find a bargain.
> > Housing costs aren't really the point to all this. The point is,
> > what will
> > you do to work in an industry you want to work in? Some people have
> > to take
> > pay cuts or freezes to fend layoffs. Isn't it worth it if you love
> > your job?
> Dave:
> Gosh, now I feel guilty, I guess I'll be giving my paycheck back
> df