Cathy Orosz

[scott mate]

Has anyone seen Cathy Orosz at News 8 in Rochester lately ? I haven't seen her in a few weeks . She seemed to move into the lead news story on News 8 day in and day at 6 PM ala Jane Flasch on 13 WHAM. I thought she might give Flasch a run for her money as lead field reporter but unless she is on vacation something might be up at 8, again.

 

[Mark_Giardina]

Has anyone seen Cathy Orosz at News 8 in Rochester lately ? I haven't seen her in a few weeks . She seemed to move into the lead news story on News 8 day in and day at 6 PM ala Jane Flasch on 13 WHAM. I thought she might give Flasch a run for her money as lead field reporter but unless she is on vacation something might be up at 8, again.

Considering the "revolving door" when it comes to personnel changes at Channel 8 it would not surprise me if Cathy Orosz is no longer with the station. I do remember that she was not a happy camper last year when the decision was made to remove her as the host of "Wake Up Rochester" after Melissa Long left the station to go work for CNN.

To answer your question about Ms.Orosz whereabouts, I personally have no idea. She could be on vacation, hiatus, working on a feature story, thus not doing her regular field reporting duties, or she could have left 8. As for the latter, if she did leave 8 I'm sure that Scott Fybush would have reported on that by now since Scott has great sources within the broadcasting community.

With regards to Ms.Orosz and being able to surpass Jane Flasch as a field reporter, with all due respects to Cathy, I've known Jane for many years and believe me she is one hell of a field reporter. I can think of a few who can compete with Jane and Cathy is not on that list.

 

[rocktv]

Her last day was June 23. She does not yet have another job. 8 told her she had to take a pay cut or leave.

 

[scott mate]

I think Jane Flasch IS the top field reporter in the Rochester market hands down. She has been the lead in news reporter to the 6PM 13 newcasts for years. Cathy Orosz was starting to become the top reporter on 8's lead in news story. I felt Cathy was 8's best reporter.

I've read on these boards of people who take offense to what they call " Channel 8 news bashers" . You can add me to the basher list. The turnover on 8 is as high as you can get. That is simply poor management. It has been well documented over the years of the many faces that have turned over at 8. When Cathy lost her morning job she could of pouted and left but she stayed and continued to delivered strong news story's. It's been well speculated that Cathy would leave because that's what the other employees have done at 8 in similar situations. Channel 8 had about a year to do the right thing and try to get Orosz to stay. They failed , again.

Cathy Orosz is a huge loss to Channel 8 but management could care less. Looking at 13WHAM, you can see why they have been rated number 1 for years. They have very little turnover. The management at 8 needs to be turned over before this station will ever dig themselves out of the bottom.

 

[Mark_Giardina]

I've read on these boards of people who take offense to what they call " Channel 8 news bashers" . You can add me to the basher list. The turnover on 8 is as high as you can get. That is simply poor management. It has been well documented over the years of the many faces that have turned over at 8. When Cathy lost her morning job she could of pouted and left but she stayed and continued to delivered strong news story's. It's been well speculated that Cathy would leave because that's what the other employees have done at 8 in similar situations. Channel 8 had about a year to do the right thing and try to get Orosz to stay. They failed , again.

Cathy Orosz is a huge loss to Channel 8 but management could care less. Looking at 13WHAM, you can see why they have been rated number 1 for years. They have very little turnover. The management at 8 needs to be turned over before this station will ever dig themselves out of the bottom.

Cathy is among a group of reporters and support staff that the current News Director wanted to get rid off. And it appears he succeeded once again.

In the past two years Channel 8 has lost Rachel Barnhart, Steve Levine, Rob Haswell, Melissa Long, Christine Crafts, Executive Producer Rob Jason, and now Cathy Orosz. The next person on Lee Eldridge's hit list is most likely Dave McKinley. If McKinley is booted out the front door, 8 can forget any hope of getting out of the ratings basement because they would have lost the last decent field reporter the station has.

The scenario at 8 appears to be once an employee's contract is up management tries to get that person to sign a new agreement, for less money. If that person refuses, they are dismissed. It's an old tactic most companies use today.

 

[BobRoss]

The problem isn't the management, at least not locally. It's the owner, Nexstar. I've never worked at channel 8, but I know a handful of people who've worked at various Nexstar stations in a few different areas, and I've never heard one good thing about the company.

When I hear a bad story from one or two people, I don't make judgement because sometimes people just have an ax to grind... but I've heard similar stories from several people.

I worked with Cathy at a different station, and if the above posts are true, it was very noble of her to stay at channel 8 even after being demoted from anchoring. But to be forced to take a pay cut? It's a tough business to just walk out voluntarily, but she deserves some applause for her dignity. You let "the man" take back a little bit just once, and it's only a matter of time before they keep cutting and cutting.

Heaven forbid some corporate CEO doesn't get his 6-figure bonus this year. Instead of investing in the product and going for long-term gain, they love to just shoot themselves in the foot... as the door continues to revolve and the ratings continue to struggle.

The worst part of all, is that she's probably under some slimy non-compete. I would assume she'd prefer to stay in Rochester since she hasn't left already, but she's probably forced to ride the bench for awhile before she can get back into the game. How many other professions screw people like that? You either have to uproot yourself and move far away, or find a completely different form of employment for awhile.

(Yes, Doctor Jones, even though we at Hospital A fired you, for no fault of your own, your non-compete stays in effect. So you're gonna have to do iron working or drive buses for 6 months before you can take a job at Hospital B or even open your own practice. Oh, you don't have qualifications for those other jobs because you focused all your education on med school? Well you can sell the house you've lived in for 12 years, pull your kids out of school and go work for Hospital C, as long as it's at least 100 miles away. Best of luck!)

I don't know if I'd personally blame Eldridge, because he may just be following orders from higher up. Even middle managers often don't get bonuses for saving money anymore... they're just acting as puppets for the corporate brass.

 

[Mark_Giardina]

Re: Cathy Orosz- No Compete Clause Is Wrong

This is a circumstance where I believe the no-compete clause should be voided.
If an employee's contract has expired and they refuse to sign a new agreement, which requires them to take a pay cut, then that person should not be held to the no-compete clause since it was contained in their old contract.

Rachel Barnhart went through the same ordeal at Channel 8. She is now working as a web site reporter for Channel 13 and should be on-air sometime this fall.

With regards to Eldridge's involvement in the recent staff changes I was told by several current and former employees that it is his decision to get rid of certain people and hire people he thinks will help Channel 8's ratings.

Does anyone here think the latest additions to Channel 8's news staff have improved the quality of that news operation? Don’t all of you raise your hands at once now.

 

[rocktv]

Cathy wants to leave the area, and is actively looking for a job. I wish her the best. Unfortunately, TV jobs don't grow on trees, especially for white women.

 

[Mark_Giardina]

Unfortunately, TV jobs don't grow on trees, especially for white women.

If Emily Smith can land a job at WABC in New York City, Cathy will find something I'm sure.
Maybe she should try down south or the mid-west. Remember a number of people who worked at Channel 8 left for better jobs.

 

[Kohoutek]

Re: Cathy Orosz- No Compete Clause Is Wrong

This is a circumstance where I believe the no-compete clause should be voided.
If an employee's contract has expired and they refuse to sign a new agreement, which requires them to take a pay cut, then that person should not be held to the no-compete clause since it was contained in their old contract.
Rachel Barnhart went through the same ordeal at Channel 8. She is now working as a web site reporter for Channel 13 and should be on-air sometime this fall.
With regards to Eldridge's involvement in the recent staff changes I was told by several current and former employees that it is his decision to get rid of certain people and hire people he thinks will help Channel 8's ratings.
Does anyone here think the latest additions to Channel 8's news staff have improved the quality of that news operation? Don’t all of you raise your hands at once now.

.

In this circumstance, Cathy's was not beholden to any non-compete. She was free and clear because she was offered a new deal with less money. I'ts a "constructive discharge" under the collective bargaining agreement between Ch. 8 and AFTRA. (These are facts, not opinions by the way)
It's also a fact that Cathy desired to make a clean start someplace else, so she didn't even try to pursue opportunities at other Rochester stations which, again, she was free to do.
Rachel's circumstances, on the other hand, were different enough so that to call her ordeal "the same" would be erroneous.
In regard to Mr. Eldridge, It's really more about hiring people he thinks he can mold in his image,..thus more veteran people who might have as much or more knowledge about the business than him are considered threats,...and thus they are (have been) targeted.

 

[Mark_Giardina]

Re: Cathy Orosz- No Compete Clause Is Wrong

So explain something to me. From what I was told Rachel's contract had expired and the station offered her a new contract, with less money and she refused. So why then was Rachel held to a no-compete clause which has prevented her from going on-air at another station and Cathy was not? The circumstances seem similar.

 

[Kohoutek]

Re: Cathy Orosz- No Compete Clause Is Wrong

So explain something to me. From what I was told Rachel's contract had expired and the station offered her a new contract, with less money and she refused. So why then was Rachel held to a no-compete clause which has prevented her from going on-air at another station and Cathy was not? The circumstances seem similar.

The short answer is you have bad information.

Here's the longer one.

Upon expiration of her contract, Rachel was offered a contract WITH a small raise, but no guarantee she'd remain weekend anchor. There was NO pay cut--at least not initially.
She refused to sign because she wanted more money and the guarantee she'd be weekend anchor (which had been a part of her previous contract) As she continued to try and negotiate these things her contract expired. At that point they played "hard ball", saying in sum and substance that, "Because you are no longer under contract, we are no longer obligated to pay you what you had been making under your previous deal...and,further, with no existing Personal Services Contract in place we are only obligated to pay you minimum scale as defined by the union contract with AFTRA" (which would have been less than what she made.)


Cathy , Unlike Rachel, was NOT offered a raise of any sort when they offered a her new deal. In fact, it came with a signifigant pay cut. Period. So, that qualifies as a constructive discharge under union terms and thus nullified her non compete.

So, again, Rachel was different because she was offered a raise and turned it down. Is it fair? Hell no. Theoretically, they could offer her a 1-cent raise (Not 1-percent mind you,) but ONE MEASLY CENT--and she'd HAVE to take it or else go away.
Conversely, (and this is where it gets really screwy) they could have offered her a pay cut of one measly cent, and she'd be free and clear!

That's what makes the whole non-compete thing so unfair and more like indentured servitude than an employment contract. Not to mention how it allows an employer to actually be punitive while holding the employee's neck beneath its thumb, if you will.

 

[Mark_Giardina]

Re: Cathy Orosz- No Compete Clause Is Wrong

So explain something to me. From what I was told Rachel's contract had expired and the station offered her a new contract, with less money and she refused. So why then was Rachel held to a no-compete clause which has prevented her from going on-air at another station and Cathy was not? The circumstances seem similar.

The short answer is you have bad information.

Here's the longer one.

Upon expiration of her contract, Rachel was offered a contract WITH a small raise, but no guarantee she'd remain weekend anchor. There was NO pay cut--at least not initially.
She refused to sign because she wanted more money and the guarantee she'd be weekend anchor (which had been a part of her previous contract) As she continued to try and negotiate these things her contract expired. At that point they played "hard ball", saying in sum and substance that, "Because you are no longer under contract, we are no longer obligated to pay you what you had been making under your previous deal...and,further, with no existing Personal Services Contract in place we are only obligated to pay you minimum scale as defined by the union contract with AFTRA" (which would have been less than what she made.)


Cathy , Unlike Rachel, was NOT offered a raise of any sort when they offered a her new deal. In fact, it came with a signifigant pay cut. Period. So, that qualifies as a constructive discharge under union terms and thus nullified her non compete.

So, again, Rachel was different because she was offered a raise and turned it down. Is it fair? Hell no. Theoretically, they could offer her a 1-cent raise (Not 1-percent mind you,) but ONE MEASLY CENT--and she'd HAVE to take it or else go away.
Conversely, (and this is where it gets really screwy) they could have offered her a pay cut of one measly cent, and she'd be free and clear!

That's what makes the whole non-compete thing so unfair and more like indentured servitude than an employment contract. Not to mention how it allows an employer to actually be punitive while holding the employee's neck beneath its thumb, if you will.

Thanks for giving me the correct information. And you're 100% right about the no-compete clause. It just plain stinks.