-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
John Murphy...
- Thread starter x13thfloorrand
- Start date
Court TV
John Murphy's brother, Hon. Matthew J. Murphy III, is the Niagara County District Attorney, so it's likely he received some solid legal grounding in this matter from his brother, as well as Scott DeLuca, his personal attorney.
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but it seems to me a lot of managers and employees of TV and Radio stations will be closely watching this. Non-compete clauses are boiler plate in performers' contracts, although a one year non-compete seems especially onerous. Whether they're allowed to stand is a matter of personal interpretation of the attorneys and the courts.
This is where a former-broadcaster-now-attorney such as Steve Boyd could fill in the blanks about this matter for us neophytes. BTW, Didn't Kevin "Why Guy" O'Neal have his non-compete set aside when he moved from Channel 4 to Channel 2?
The Murphy-WKBW-TV case could hinge on whether Murphy quit or terminated.
Ransom/Granite might argue (as noted in the News account) that Murphy quit before Ransom made the decision to relieve him of his final broadcast.
Conversely, it could be that in an attempt to cut costs and renegotiate Murphy's six figure contract, Granite violated the contract.
It will be interesting to find out if this even makes it to trial. If it does, who will be assigned to hear this case? Will Granite's attorneys petition the assigned judge (say, reknown media hound, Hon. Penny Wolfgang, a woman who can smell a camera or microphone at 50 yards) to recuse him/herself because of the position Murphy's brother has in Niagara County? Will Granite seek a change of venue, perhaps to Syracuse, given Murphy's high profile and generally likeable personality?
Might a judge look at Murphy's salary and rule that even at half of six figures, it's an acceptable salary, especially given the median income in Western New York and require Murphy to fulfill the terms of the contract? Might the judge ask, "Were you of sound mind when you entered into this agreement? If so, the non-compete stands."
There are more than a few of $32 thousand-a-year TV and Radio reporters who will be paying attention to this matter, more than likely because they have contracts with non-competes.
My lay person's guess is that this matter gets settled out of court, with some kind of compromise, perhaps holding Murphy out of work for three to six months (until after the Bills season.) Granite doesn't need the aggravation and burden of litigating this, nor does it wanting to look like the power hungry out-of-town media pariah trying to put the squeeze on a well-known local employee (moreso those having non-competes and making $32k a year.)
Hell, Murphy's attorney could argue that he did Granite a favor by relieving the cash-strapped company of his six figure salary.
-9-
John Murphy's brother, Hon. Matthew J. Murphy III, is the Niagara County District Attorney, so it's likely he received some solid legal grounding in this matter from his brother, as well as Scott DeLuca, his personal attorney.
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but it seems to me a lot of managers and employees of TV and Radio stations will be closely watching this. Non-compete clauses are boiler plate in performers' contracts, although a one year non-compete seems especially onerous. Whether they're allowed to stand is a matter of personal interpretation of the attorneys and the courts.
This is where a former-broadcaster-now-attorney such as Steve Boyd could fill in the blanks about this matter for us neophytes. BTW, Didn't Kevin "Why Guy" O'Neal have his non-compete set aside when he moved from Channel 4 to Channel 2?
The Murphy-WKBW-TV case could hinge on whether Murphy quit or terminated.
Ransom/Granite might argue (as noted in the News account) that Murphy quit before Ransom made the decision to relieve him of his final broadcast.
Conversely, it could be that in an attempt to cut costs and renegotiate Murphy's six figure contract, Granite violated the contract.
It will be interesting to find out if this even makes it to trial. If it does, who will be assigned to hear this case? Will Granite's attorneys petition the assigned judge (say, reknown media hound, Hon. Penny Wolfgang, a woman who can smell a camera or microphone at 50 yards) to recuse him/herself because of the position Murphy's brother has in Niagara County? Will Granite seek a change of venue, perhaps to Syracuse, given Murphy's high profile and generally likeable personality?
Might a judge look at Murphy's salary and rule that even at half of six figures, it's an acceptable salary, especially given the median income in Western New York and require Murphy to fulfill the terms of the contract? Might the judge ask, "Were you of sound mind when you entered into this agreement? If so, the non-compete stands."
There are more than a few of $32 thousand-a-year TV and Radio reporters who will be paying attention to this matter, more than likely because they have contracts with non-competes.
My lay person's guess is that this matter gets settled out of court, with some kind of compromise, perhaps holding Murphy out of work for three to six months (until after the Bills season.) Granite doesn't need the aggravation and burden of litigating this, nor does it wanting to look like the power hungry out-of-town media pariah trying to put the squeeze on a well-known local employee (moreso those having non-competes and making $32k a year.)
Hell, Murphy's attorney could argue that he did Granite a favor by relieving the cash-strapped company of his six figure salary.
-9-
Re: Court TV
The enforcement of a non-compete provision should be based on several factors:
1) Has there been any compensation (quid pro quo) for agreeing to stay off-air for a period of time AFTER the company STOPS paying a salary?
2) Is the period in question unreasonably long?
3) Does the non-compete apply to the EXPIRATION of a contract, not just termination "for cause"?
Generally speaking, a company really does have to show evidence of intent to breach the contract to justify the enforcement of a non-compete that prevents someone from earning a living in their profession (without having to move), especially for ONE YEAR.
To understand the way a court will likely rule, you must turn this around and ask the question from a different angle:
Should a company be allowed to enforce a non-compete clause if the current contract expires and the new conract they offered cuts the employees pay? I would hope not.
If your contract allows that circumstance, you've negotiated poorly.
The enforcement of a non-compete provision should be based on several factors:
1) Has there been any compensation (quid pro quo) for agreeing to stay off-air for a period of time AFTER the company STOPS paying a salary?
2) Is the period in question unreasonably long?
3) Does the non-compete apply to the EXPIRATION of a contract, not just termination "for cause"?
Generally speaking, a company really does have to show evidence of intent to breach the contract to justify the enforcement of a non-compete that prevents someone from earning a living in their profession (without having to move), especially for ONE YEAR.
To understand the way a court will likely rule, you must turn this around and ask the question from a different angle:
Should a company be allowed to enforce a non-compete clause if the current contract expires and the new conract they offered cuts the employees pay? I would hope not.
If your contract allows that circumstance, you've negotiated poorly.
Amicus Curiae
This is where the opinion of Robert Savage, Attorney at Law, would be welcome.
It's said that New York State is a right to work state and as such, non-compete clauses are not looked upon favorably by most courts, especially as the clauses apply to employees who work in restrictive and limited fields.
Additionally, you'd think New York State would want to keep as many people as possible on payrolls in order to maintain the tax base.
There have been a few cases where non-compete clauses have been "laughed out of court" in this state, including New York City, the nation's number one market. You'd think decisions in market #52 would allow even further lattitude.
This is where the opinion of Robert Savage, Attorney at Law, would be welcome.
It's said that New York State is a right to work state and as such, non-compete clauses are not looked upon favorably by most courts, especially as the clauses apply to employees who work in restrictive and limited fields.
Additionally, you'd think New York State would want to keep as many people as possible on payrolls in order to maintain the tax base.
There have been a few cases where non-compete clauses have been "laughed out of court" in this state, including New York City, the nation's number one market. You'd think decisions in market #52 would allow even further lattitude.
Re: Amicus Curiae
If memory serves me correct Rachel Barnhart (formally of WROC TV) had to wait over a year before she was allowed to appear on-air at Channel 13 because of a non-compete clause. That was the ruling of an arbitrator. So there have been cases where the judicial system will rule in favor of management.
I join the chorus in the belief that non-compete clauses are unfair, especially when an employee’s contract is not renewed by their current employer. I’m not a lawyer, but in my opinion if say Channel X didn’t want a certain person to remain on the payroll, and that person’s contract has expired, then that person has the right to seek gainful employment, even if it means going to a competitive station.
Radknowski said:
If memory serves me correct Rachel Barnhart (formally of WROC TV) had to wait over a year before she was allowed to appear on-air at Channel 13 because of a non-compete clause. That was the ruling of an arbitrator. So there have been cases where the judicial system will rule in favor of management.
I join the chorus in the belief that non-compete clauses are unfair, especially when an employee’s contract is not renewed by their current employer. I’m not a lawyer, but in my opinion if say Channel X didn’t want a certain person to remain on the payroll, and that person’s contract has expired, then that person has the right to seek gainful employment, even if it means going to a competitive station.
1
1234-1
Guest
I am personally not a fan of non compete clauses either....but he did sign 6 of them. He was offered a new contract and opted not to sign. If either 2 or 4 were clamoring to hire him, then maybe he might have a case. Right now it looks like a guy who just wants money for nothing.
Why would he care about the non-compete if either 2 or 4 - or somebody else in town - weren't "clamoring to hire him"?
If you've ever signed an non-compete, you find yourself in a vicious situation. If you refuse to sign a new contract because it has a non-compete, you're threatened with termination and the prospect of having to wait out the non-compete clause from the last contract.
I understand the station's position that they've expended time and money to promote Mr. Murphy's talents. But, promotion doesn't mean squat if there isn't talent to promote. To me, it should be a wash. I think that non-compete contracts should be outlawed, or at least capped at a maximum of 90 days. That's a reasonable amount of time for any public furor over someone leaving a station to die down, and a reasonable amount of time for a talent to have to work outside the business or live off his/her savings.
Channel 7 was not bargaining in good faith in this case. If they had offered to extend Murphy's contract, that would have been one thing. Demanding that Murphy take a significant cut in pay because of the company's management and programming failures is unfair. Murphy didn't drive the product into the ground. Granite did.
If you've ever signed an non-compete, you find yourself in a vicious situation. If you refuse to sign a new contract because it has a non-compete, you're threatened with termination and the prospect of having to wait out the non-compete clause from the last contract.
I understand the station's position that they've expended time and money to promote Mr. Murphy's talents. But, promotion doesn't mean squat if there isn't talent to promote. To me, it should be a wash. I think that non-compete contracts should be outlawed, or at least capped at a maximum of 90 days. That's a reasonable amount of time for any public furor over someone leaving a station to die down, and a reasonable amount of time for a talent to have to work outside the business or live off his/her savings.
Channel 7 was not bargaining in good faith in this case. If they had offered to extend Murphy's contract, that would have been one thing. Demanding that Murphy take a significant cut in pay because of the company's management and programming failures is unfair. Murphy didn't drive the product into the ground. Granite did.
1
1234-1
Guest
Why would he care ... he probably doesn't. It's all about a settlement.
As for Channel 7 not bargaining in good faith, look around. Every anchor in this market has been asked to take a pay cut ....and if they haven't been asked, they will when their next contract comes up. I would love to make the $$ he was offered in the contract he turned down ... I'm sure most people working in the business in this area would as well. The forecast for the Buffalo market is not spectacular and to continue paying huge salaries is not an option. Ch. 7 recently laid off 4 people and 3 of the salaries combined would not equal what he made in his last contract.
The other issue is that ratings take a nose dive when sports comes on. People who are truly interested in sports have been following it all day on ESPN, talk radio, etc. They don't watch it on the 11pm news ... and that's not just a 7 issue.
It is what it is. He knew the deal when he signed his contract. He made great $$ for many years ... and this last deal was nothing to sneeze at. It's all about negotiation. Murphy's a big boy. I'm sure he'll be fine.
As for Channel 7 not bargaining in good faith, look around. Every anchor in this market has been asked to take a pay cut ....and if they haven't been asked, they will when their next contract comes up. I would love to make the $$ he was offered in the contract he turned down ... I'm sure most people working in the business in this area would as well. The forecast for the Buffalo market is not spectacular and to continue paying huge salaries is not an option. Ch. 7 recently laid off 4 people and 3 of the salaries combined would not equal what he made in his last contract.
The other issue is that ratings take a nose dive when sports comes on. People who are truly interested in sports have been following it all day on ESPN, talk radio, etc. They don't watch it on the 11pm news ... and that's not just a 7 issue.
It is what it is. He knew the deal when he signed his contract. He made great $$ for many years ... and this last deal was nothing to sneeze at. It's all about negotiation. Murphy's a big boy. I'm sure he'll be fine.
J
jfc40ts
Guest
In the case of other personalities at Ch. 7, they were given 2 weeks to sign their new contracts or be gone. I'm sure, as element 9 noted, John's brother and his personal attorney are more qualified than any of us as how to best deal with this problem...
I beg to differ with Mr. Radknowski but NY is NOT a right to work state. It is an at will state, which is one reason why unions are so prevalent here.
I've always wondered why non-compete clauses are enforceable anyways. If the contract expires, doesn't it mean all provisions therein are now null and void?
SR hit the nail on the head...Granite didn't need anyone's help in flushing the station down the toilet. They did just fine all by themselves. Like most "non broadcast" types, they fail to see that broadcasting is a performance based industry (like pro sports, movies, etc) as opposed to a production based industry like GM or Ford...
I beg to differ with Mr. Radknowski but NY is NOT a right to work state. It is an at will state, which is one reason why unions are so prevalent here.
I've always wondered why non-compete clauses are enforceable anyways. If the contract expires, doesn't it mean all provisions therein are now null and void?
SR hit the nail on the head...Granite didn't need anyone's help in flushing the station down the toilet. They did just fine all by themselves. Like most "non broadcast" types, they fail to see that broadcasting is a performance based industry (like pro sports, movies, etc) as opposed to a production based industry like GM or Ford...
jfc40ts said:
You are absolutely correct.
No sooner did I write that and close out did it hit me that I was wrong. When I went to the shop, I looked it up in our state employment manuals. Later, I went on line. Here's an exerpt from the labor law files of the Office of the NYS State Attorney General:
NYS Attorney General said:
I have personally walked away from two jobs because they wanted me to sign a contract. One was for a position I already held and the other was for of all things a part-time job! Currently I live in a "right to work" state, supposedly they can't hold people to these contracts. Again supposedly we can fight it but I've never heard of anyone doing it, or winning. Most just suck it up and wait it out or leave town.
My feeling is I wouldn't sign anything that unduly benefits the employer without benefitting me equally. If I do sign something that means I have agreed to it and I will abide by it.
Seems to me the real problem are the people who are willing to sign their rights away in a business that is not known for looking out for their employees. I am probably oversimplifying things here but if everyone refused to sign these one sided contracts it would cease to be an issue.
I'd like to see what everyone else thinks about this.....
My feeling is I wouldn't sign anything that unduly benefits the employer without benefitting me equally. If I do sign something that means I have agreed to it and I will abide by it.
Seems to me the real problem are the people who are willing to sign their rights away in a business that is not known for looking out for their employees. I am probably oversimplifying things here but if everyone refused to sign these one sided contracts it would cease to be an issue.
I'd like to see what everyone else thinks about this.....
Mike Sheridan said:
Yes Mike, you have over-simplified things a bit, but props to you for having the stones to walk away from such a situation. For most people slogging around in the trenches, it's not that easy. They have kids, car payments and mortages. Sometimes "walking" is easier said than done.
Management and ownership believe it has employees by the short hairs and with the way most Americans are over-extended financially and up to their eyes in credit card debt, they do. Look what's happened with GM, Ford and Chrysler and the UAW.
Most Radio-TV managers are power hungry weasels striving hard to work their way up to being ferrets. They couldn't care less about Dave the Promotions Director. They're up against it themselves because they have to answer for their jobs. They too have those pretty McMansions in Brighton and East Amherst, kids in braces and car payments.
Billionaire Warren Buffet once oberved "the more you make, the more you spend and that's where you get into financial trouble." These management types are just as up to their eyes in debt as the guys on the air, the difference is they're running the rat race with more expensive clothes and nicer shoes.
I don't know what the economy is like in Charlotte, but it's not raining money in Western New York. Imagine being an RVP, GM (Bill Ransom) or SM who has to answer to the head-suits every week. Imagine working for a company whose stock is worth less than the currency of the Weimer Republic. Sorry bastards. Well-paid, but still sorry bastards.
Most companies don't realize how much animosity one-sided contracts generate among the rank and file. Few employees truy love their stations these days and who can blame them if their loyalty sometimes flags.
Today's Buffalo News has an update on the Murphy contract situation.
Murphy is luckier than most and while we can sympathize with his plight and his efforts, it's pretty hard to get juiced about a guy who was drawing six figures. It's the same for Joe Torre's plight with the Yankees. Five mil, seven mil... hard to buy in.
Nonetheless, it's the principle of the issue. Whether you're John Murphy in TV, Joe Torre in MLB or Tom Teninarow in Radio, it's easy to understand the lack of appreciation some companies exhibit for services, professionalism and efforts rendered by their employees.
As Torre said, "You get an offer like that and it's clear to see that they don't really want you."
-9-
Warren also made the comment(in reference to our unfair tax system) that he is in a lower tax bracket than his secretary...and that's not a joke, but the sad truth.
9 - some very good observations. No matter what our politics are, you must understand that middle class America is in steep decline. Folks in other professions are starting to experience the same sense of insecurity those of us in broadcasting have lived with. These are golden times for the top 1% of wage earners and for us working stiffs(no matter what our line of work is), these are quite the opposite of times.
Usually, non-competes have a distance component - like 75 or 100 miles. That might keep him out of Rochester as well.
Re: Amicus Curiae
So I was off by two months. Sue me! I do remember that she hired former state Senator and now Brighton Town Judge Rick Dollinger to represent her and an arbitrator ruled against Rachel which would have allowed her to appear on 13 shortly after leaving 8. Instead she worked as 13's internet, on-line, what-ever you want to call it, reporter for several months.
Kohoutek said:
So I was off by two months. Sue me! I do remember that she hired former state Senator and now Brighton Town Judge Rick Dollinger to represent her and an arbitrator ruled against Rachel which would have allowed her to appear on 13 shortly after leaving 8. Instead she worked as 13's internet, on-line, what-ever you want to call it, reporter for several months.
Mike Sheridan said:
Luckily I never had to make that decision. I did work for a very good employer in radio who had a philosophy that "we don't sign people to non-competes or contracts, if they don't want to work for us, we certainly don't want to keep them here". A pretty rare attitude.
- Status