Hunter & Josh testing NY's Right to Work Law

[SirRoxalot]

The former 95X morning team is now on K-Rock, and Cumulus isn't happy about it. Their lawyers sent a Cease & Desist, which Ed Levine ignored. I guess we may find out if non-competes really are again the law in NY. CNY Radio has more on the topic...

http://www.cnyradio.com/2012/10/20/cease-and-desist-letter-delays-krock-debut-of-ex-95x-hosts/

 

[OldNumber7]

Huh? What does this have to do with "right to work" (which, by the way, is not a law in New York)? They had a contract, it expired, and the story says the issue is whether the former employer renegotiated in good faith. There is nothing in the story about a union, or about anyone being forced to join a union as condition of employment; I think you have a misunderstanding about what "right to work" is.

 

[RadioPro65]

Huh? What does this have to do with "right to work" (which, by the way, is not a law in New York)? They had a contract, it expired, and the story says the issue is whether the former employer renegotiated in good faith. There is nothing in the story about a union, or about anyone being forced to join a union as condition of employment; I think you have a misunderstanding about what "right to work" is.

Very correct! "Right to work" is not even an issue in this one. There are two possible issues being presented. One is NY State's "law barring non-competes for broadcasters, a law which has yet to face a court challenge." Reports from Central NY say Cumulus appears to be trying to avoid a test of that law, by "claiming the hosts have inside information from their former station that they're bringing to their new station."

Meanwhile, I've heard that Syracuse-based Galaxy Communications, which owns/operates "K-Rock" WKRL-FM has been advised by their lawyers that the original C&D from Cumulus wouldn't hold weight, and Galaxy President/CEO Ed Levine wasn't worried. Hunter Scott and Josh Grosvent appear to be able to prove they waited and stayed with "95X" WAQX-FM long enough after their contract expired and couldn't get a new contract or even talks about one to avoid the contract clause claimed to have been violated. And Cumulus, though they won't admit it, seems to know that, which is why they apparently are going with the new approach of taking company/station secrets crosstown.

This is a very interesting case which is worth following. Meanwhile, last I heard, no court injunction has been issued, and the duo remains on the air at their new station.

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

Cumulus may find this is more trouble than it's worth. You'd think the company would have bigger fish to fry. It does. I'm not an attorney, but I know Citadel and Cumulus write their employment contracts in language that gives the employer 100% and leaves nothing to the employee. Cumulus had ample time but failed to renew or extend the employees' contract. The company arguably acted in bad faith. Especially given New York State law regarding non-compete clauses (such clauses have no hold), the air talent would appear to be free to find employment at another company. Cumulus now claims the employees had access to proprietary information. If this case goes to court, Cumulus will have to define "proprietary." What? These guys knew how to operate Selector or Scott automation? Just an educated guess based on previous rulings and reading of the law, a judge is very likely to rule "don't waste the Court's time." Dismissed.

_________________________________________________

BTW, good to see a guy from the Buffalo board jump-started the 'Cuse board. We were beginning to wonder about you boys.

 

[Bob1370]

If their contract is indeed expired and they're not just contract-jumping, their former employer doesn't have a leg to stand on.

The NY State Legislature passed, and former Governor Paterson signed, a bill that specifically declares all 'non-compete' clauses that extend beyond the end of an employment contract, in ANY business (not just media) to be null, void and unenforceable.

If Cumulus also wants to enforce some kind of "proprietary information" clause, guess what? They have to go into open court and declare what kind of "proprietary information" these guys had, and then prove they disclosed it and did harm to Cumulus in the process.

Good luck to that--first of all, the proof of such an allegation requires public disclosure in open court, which destroys all confidentiality and turns proprietary information into public record, and second, they have the burden of proof to show that they not only had the information but hurt Cumulus by disclosing it. Someone with good sense will tell them to let it drop.

Sounds like a catch-22 to me.

 

[SirRoxalot]

The "proprietary information" claim is simply obfuscation to try and scare them into complying with the C&D. It's possible that Cumulus will sic the lawyers on them figuring that they won't have the money to defend themselves, but I'm sure that there are lawyers who would LOVE to take the case - and a chunk of the money that they'd likely win in the counter-suit.

 

[CNYRadio.com]

Judging by the topics in the most-recent messages, I'm not sure if everyone in the thread is aware of the latest:

http://www.cnyradio.com/2012/10/29/...to-continue-broadcasting-but-with-conditions/

In a nutshell, the non-compete issue doesn't appear to be a factor.

The major decisions made this week are:
- they can no longer refer to themselves as "The Show"
- they can't use their fictional character "Chalkdust"
- they can't use the term "Beer Fridays" anymore... which is why today was "Beer Day Before Saturday."

The court activity this week was just a temporary injunction; the next court date is set for November.

 

[THE_KNICKMAN]

Wouldn't one think that "The Show" is very generic? Besides, they could call it "Our Show" or perhaps "Your Show"?

 

[smedge2006]

Roxalot's mixup is actually very common among working people in the states that have so-called "right to work" laws, which may explain their popularity in parts of the South and Midwest... the dummies don't realize what they're supporting!

 

[OldNumber7]

Roxalot's mixup is actually very common among working people in the states that have so-called "right to work" laws, which may explain their popularity in parts of the South and Midwest... the dummies don't realize what they're supporting!

I doubt a lot of working people have non competes, so this opinion is wrong-headed.
Right To Work laws protect people from being compelled to join a union as a condition of employment. Seems "the dummies" in the South and Midwest believe they are capable of running their own lives, or at least want THE CHOICE. How stupid of them!

 

[Bob1370]

"Right To Work laws protect people from being compelled to join a union as a condition of employment. Seems "the dummies" in the South and Midwest believe they are capable of running their own lives, or at least want THE CHOICE. How stupid of them!"

In practice, "right to work" turns out more like "right to be underpaid, and right to take it from the boss without recourse." If you're in New York, be happy you aren't in such a place.

 

[Element9]

New York, like many northern and industrial states, is an "at will" state. Long story short, an employee can get screwed "at will" of the employer. Back in the day, this is why unions like the Steelworkers, IBEW and Teamsters came to prominence. As to Cumulus, first round goes to their former employees as the judge rules Cumulus has no right to bar them from employment. The Court's ruling to restricting the use of character names and monikers is small potatoes. As mentioned a previous post in this thread, there are numerous work-arounds. Although "Beer Day Before Saturday" is particularly vapid, it probably works with the demo.

 

[OldNumber7]

In practice, "right to work" turns out more like "right to be underpaid, and right to take it from the boss without recourse." If you're in New York, be happy you aren't in such a place.

Sure, be happy to give up a chunk of your pay to union bosses so they can travel to exotic locales for conventions and retreats and spend the rest of your cash supporting candidates you might not agree with. And be happy to see your co-workers slack off or screw up and get the same pay as you. Again, I say what's wrong with freedom of choice?

 

[Tom Wells]

In practice, "right to work" turns out more like "right to be underpaid, and right to take it from the boss without recourse." If you're in New York, be happy you aren't in such a place.

Sure, be happy to give up a chunk of your pay to union bosses so they can travel to exotic locales for conventions and retreats and spend the rest of your cash supporting candidates you might not agree with. And be happy to see your co-workers slack off or screw up and get the same pay as you. Again, I say what's wrong with freedom of choice?

Freedom of choice? I'm free to work every damn day of the year with no scheduled days off ever.

No chance to relax or get used to being on straight midnights forever, I must also jump to other shifts
whenever anyone else wants to take days off, even if that means a bad case of jet lag every other week.

No work breaks where I have time to myself, no lunch break.

The union workers with 30 years of experience get paid for their experience, earning about 12 dollars more per hour.

I'm not eligible to join the union, my work group is specifically excluded. Neither are the illegal ( ahem ) undocumented
workers in the quality control department.

Tell me some more about how wonderful is to not have unions. I'm listening.

Don't suggest that I complain officially. There really is no one who cares. If I don't like it, I can go find some other
place and find out what their mode of expoitation is.

 

[therealjm12]

I have been in unions in broadcasting and out in the real world. I have, also, been a shop steward. I can assure you that management is able to dismiss incompetent workers by the terms of any union contract that I've ever read. Sometimes, they don't just because they are just too lazy or incompetent to follow the steps in the contract to dismissal. I can think of several union employees in the the Rochester media that have been fired including our current County Executive - and I don't think she was ever accused of incompetence while working in broadcasting. In my current position I have seen many union employees fired for various reasons. And, in my opinion, in most cases justifiably. In non union shops I have seen many people fired, for what seemed like no reason. As anyone who ever worked in radio can tell you, it might have been just because the boss was hung over. That union protection would come in mighty handy in such a situation.

The term Right to work is totally misleading. It is simply a union busting procedure. A union is a union -meaning everybody joins and takes advantage of any benefits that exists. If the option is there not to join, then human nature would dictate people would not join and not pay union dues but still have all the advantages of a union -which could not exist without 100% membership.

 

[smedge2006]

"Right To Work laws protect people from being compelled to join a union as a condition of employment. Seems "the dummies" in the South and Midwest believe they are capable of running their own lives, or at least want THE CHOICE. How stupid of them!"

Whatever your opinion of "right to work" laws, to think that they protect workers from no-compete clauses is dumb, and those who are under that impression may accurately be characterized as dummies. It shows why the supporters of open-shop union-busting legislation chose the phrase "right to work." It's an early example of framing the meme.

 

[JustPastBuffalo]

Cumulus appealed the lower Court's ruling by taking it to the Fourth Department Appellate (the second highest Court in NY state) Court in Rochester, where a judge refused to hear the case. In layman's terms, that Court said "don't waste our time." If the Appellate Court chose not hear the appeal, it's unlikely the NYS Court of Appeals (the highest Court in the state) will do the same. Very likely, it's back to State Supreme Court for arbitration and settlement.

 

[quadraphonic]

"Right To Work laws protect people from being compelled to join a union as a condition of employment. Seems "the dummies" in the South and Midwest believe they are capable of running their own lives, or at least want THE CHOICE. How stupid of them!"

Whatever your opinion of "right to work" laws, to think that they protect workers from no-compete clauses is dumb, and those who are under that impression may accurately be characterized as dummies. It shows why the supporters of open-shop union-busting legislation chose the phrase "right to work." It's an early example of framing the meme.

At least that's a more specific application of "dummies" than attaching "dummies" to anyone in the South and Midwest....

 

[smedge2006]

At least that's a more specific application of "dummies" than attaching "dummies" to anyone in the South and Midwest....

From my experience, most working people in the South and Midwest, if you caught them Jay Leno-style on a street corner and asked them, WOULD tell you that right to work is about "protecting their right to work!" Not unlike the first post in this thread. They wouldn't have a clue about unions or non-competes.