Comments on: NABET’s Seggi responds

By: Tim

Tim — Fri, 22 May 2009 15:22:57 +0000

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.

By: In The Media

In The Media — Fri, 22 May 2009 14:35:46 +0000

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.

By: legend

legend — Fri, 22 May 2009 13:55:41 +0000

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 ?

By: CRANK

CRANK — Fri, 22 May 2009 11:06:45 +0000

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.

By: PR

PR — Thu, 21 May 2009 19:00:05 +0000

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.

By: legend

legend — Thu, 21 May 2009 16:52:44 +0000

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.