May 21st, 2009 
joel NABET, the union that represents the released WSEE employees, has been under fire here on The Press and Tower, with comments asking why the union wasn’t able to cushion the impact of this massive job loss. Their representative Eric Seggi responded to our request for comment.
Here’s our e-mail exchange:
P&T: What has been NABET’s role since the beginning when Lilly Broadcasting started talking about the merger of WSEE with WICU?
ES: The Union has been discussing the merger situation since the end of last summer/early fall (2008). As part of contract negotiations with WICU for the NABET unit at the station, the Company brought up the merger proposal. Because WICU has two collective bargaining agreements, one with NABET and another with AFTRA, we believed the best way to approach the discussion was to have all of the parties together (WICU units AFTRA & NABET, and the WSEE NABET unit). The three parties put together a comprehensive proposal which would allow the company to assign members of each unit to perform work under the other agreements. This process took several months, with several revisions. We presented the proposal to the Company and they decided to go in another direction (They did not give the Union a reason for their change in position). We finished the WICU negotiations in early December without an agreement on the merger.
P&T: In my discussions with NABET members at WSEE over the past few months, very few knew what was in store for them. What kinds of communication have you been able to facilitate to your members as they’ve navigated this process?
ES: We have held several meetings with the membership, and the stewards at WSEE (I just met with the Stewards from WSEE and WICU two weeks ago) . Unfortunately, we can only speculate on what path the Company will take. We have tried to advise the membership on what the possibilities are, and how NABET will respond in each instance. There have been many rumors as to when the merger would occur, some had the weather and sports departments moving to WICU in February.
P&T: Is there anything in the current union contract that the way these layoffs are being executed are in violation of the contract and if so, what if any action is being taken?
ES: So far the Company has followed the contractual procedure regarding layoffs, there have been no contract violations. If, for example, the Company began to assign work covered under the WSEE/NABET collective bargaining agreement to employees outside of the bargaining unit, the Union believes that would be a violation. If that were to occur, the Union would file a grievance under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, which could end up in arbitration if the matter is not resolved between the parties.
P&T: There’s seems to be many misconceptions of how much power a union has during job losses. Can you explain what protections NABET can and can’t give members during a massive layoff?
ES: Most of the power of any Union regarding massive layoff would be subject to the collective bargaining agreement. Some agreements have minimum staffing levels, this type of language is difficult to negotiate in to contracts because Company’s are concerned about economic downturns etc. The WSEE agreement does not have a minimum staffing level, it does contain jurisdictional language that requires the Company to use only bargaining unit members to perform the work, unless otherwise allowed under specific conditions. The Union believes the merger is not one of those conditions. Moreover, Unions have the ability to negotiate severance, medical/health care extensions, request information regarding plant closure/mergers and bring political leverage to a situation in order to protect as many jobs as possible. The television industry is no different than manufacturing when it comes to mergers/downsizing.
P&T: What kind of encouragement would you like to say in public to your NABET brothers and sisters?
ES: I want our members to know that they will be informed on any proposals/changes etc., as soon as it becomes available. I know how tough it is not knowing what your future employment will be in the next couple of weeks. We have scheduled a meeting with the Company and we will try to provide answers to all of their questions. The Company has abided by the collective bargaining to date, we cannot respond until there is a violation of the agreement.
Posted in 
Tags: 
Loading ...
Thanks for showing the union side. Obviously, I think that the union in general and Seg in particular have taken and unfair amount of criticism over this situation. The fact is that both sides are bound by contractual agreements and unless they are broken, management calls the shots. And again, I’m a NABET local past-president. It’s their business, they get to operate it the way they see fit…if they don’t break the contract, hands are tied.
Hang in there Seg and everybody else. It’s tough now, but it will get better…it may just take some time.
Thanks to Erie Seggi for coming forward and clearing up some of the misconceptions. SJL will do what ever they damn well please and screw everybody else…we’ve seen that already. Hang on boys and girls…it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
So as I read it, the union did essentially nothing one way or the other. So exactly what did those dues paying union members receive in exchange for their dollars? Apparently the company did not violate the contract provisions. No minimum staffing requirements were contained in the contract. Again, what did the union due pay for? One could make the argument that the union has outlived it’s usefulness and the money spent on dues, could have been put to much better use by those now losing their jobs.
Sure, you can make that argument. You can also very correctly make the argument that unions throughout the years have raised wages and made working conditions better for everyone, whether they’re members of the union or not. Unions set a minimum salary requirement for all members, which, in my almost 30 years, has always been higher than the non-union shops. When on-air folks at a station in Pittsburgh voted their union out a few years back, the minimum reporters salary dropped $17,000 almost immediately. As I’ve said before, are unions what they once were, no. But I’d still rather have them then not.
And once again, if an owner decides to eliminate positions, that is the owner’s decision. How can you ask him\her to continue to pay money that he claims not to have ?
One thing you have to remember. In any union shop, the members vote on the contract. If no one makes changes, then the contract goes into effect as is. The members of WSEE voted on that contract how it was written with no minimum staffing requirements. The members could’ve changed that but no one did. So in the end, they were given the contact that they voted on.
I believe Legend in right. While NABET might not have been able to prevent what is happening at WSEE they have been able over the years to win substantial increases in wages and benefits.
I guess you have to take the good with the bad? I have also heard that the employees at WSEE are going to receive Union-negotiated severance packages…so they may feel they got their dues worth?
This is a bit off topic but I heard that (since it was discussed in another forum) the WSEE building was in terrible shape – especially the roof. This is true…last summer a building engineer did a survey and found that the roof trusses were nearing the end of their usefull life span. They could have been replaced…but it would have cost Mr. Lilly somewhere in the neighborhood of $500,000! I’m pretty sure that had to be one of the deciding factors in moving everything to 35th & State!? Anyway, that is what I heard. Not sure if that was the deciding factor or a combination along with a terrible economy.