Re: Entercom imposes contract on AFTRA

[Dave Faneuf <tklaundry@juno.com>]

On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 09:48:38 -0500 "Sean Smyth" <ssmyth@suscom.net>
writes:
> Dave Faneuf writes:
> >> As far as I know "correspondents" for the Globe, Sun or other 
> papers
> >> are freelance writers,  and you are correct, they don't have 
> union
> >> protection which is something that the union needs to correct.
> 
> In this case, the "staff correspondents" in the suburban bureaus for 
> the
> Globe are indeed staffers, but a new lower-level class of staffer 
> that the
> Globe created that doesn't provide any union protections. The Globe 
> claims
> these suburban reporters have a lighter workload than their in-town
> counterparts, which is false. Several other papers (the Seattle 
> Times and
> Philadelphia Inquirer among them) have instituted this two-tier 
> staff
> system, and unions are livid.
> 
> I don't know of anywhere that regular freelance writers are uuion 
> protected.

Interesting that the union at the Globe would allow that,  what kind of
loophole is in that contract.  I made the assumption based on my
knowledge of "correspondents" at the Lowell Sun.  The couple that I have
known over the years are paid on a per story/column inch basis and the
union there is very unhappy with that arrangement as well.   Freelance
announcers at AFTRA stations are generally protected in the union
contract and get the same pay/benefits as staff announcers.  Stations
have used the term freelance to get around the bean counters at corporate
imposing limits on staffing.
df