• 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

Stop The Presses!

In recent years, the AJC was printed on the Gainesville Times press in Gainesville. With the AJC ending the print edition, the Gainesville Times is dismantling their press and outsourcing the printing of their paper to South Carolina.

Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?
 
In recent years, the AJC was printed on the Gainesville Times press in Gainesville. With the AJC ending the print edition, the Gainesville Times is dismantling their press and outsourcing the printing of their paper to South Carolina.

Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?
The last paper I was with before retiring changed printing locations three times in my six years there as partner papers shut down their own presses. AFAIK, they still have a print edition, but I have no idea where it's printed or how many times they've been forced to find another press.
 
We're seeing living proof of a fundamental change in society that started with the invention of the camera. As late as the 1890s print media was solely focused on intellect. Even later in the very early days of radio, advertising was essentially a speech using logic to convince people to purchase. Nowadays it's not intelect that's targeted, it's passion and emotions. The rise of social media has exaserbated the trend significantly. People don't have the patience to sit down and read a newspaper. AJC certainly won't be the last newspaper to go online only.
 
We're seeing living proof of a fundamental change in society that started with the invention of the camera. As late as the 1890s print media was solely focused on intellect. Even later in the very early days of radio, advertising was essentially a speech using logic to convince people to purchase. Nowadays it's not intelect that's targeted, it's passion and emotions. The rise of social media has exaserbated the trend significantly. People don't have the patience to sit down and read a newspaper. AJC certainly won't be the last newspaper to go online only.
If there are outlets that mainly focus on intellect its gotta be the wire services like AP, Reuters that do that on the national levels.

But yes passions and emotions sell in today's media environment and way more in even number years as we are now. Op-ed columns, political ads and social media posts by politicians and pundits sell more now given that we are in an election year.
 
Now the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is ending publication and planning to cease operations entirely.


I wasn't hitting the (ironic) paywall but I added an archive link.
The statement by the paper raises another issue: as AI develops, those "outdated" work rules will cause even more contention in union shops of all kinds.

In radio, we can look back at how unions required board operators long after such "assistance" to air talent was made unnecessary by better equipment and aids like cart machines and automatic volume control devices.
 
In radio, we can look back at how unions required board operators

They required them because they were in the contract. How did they get in the contract? Management agreed to the contract. Every contract has a term to it. That gives management a chance to negotiate out of certain work rules. I worked in three different unions in three different cities, and the work rules were different in each city. I kept moving until I found the work rules I liked. But my point is in each case, those work rules were negotiated with management. So management had an opt out point. It's not just the union.

The article says this company has been losing money for 20 years!!!! Didn't anybody notice? Didn't anybody in ownership say we need to stop losing money? Or did they just keep approving the same budgets and the same contracts year after year?? iHeart has been losing money for 20 years, but at least there, they keep trying to reign in costs, and they have a long term plan beyond broadcasting. Did that happen in Pittsburgh? This is an example of bad management. They deserve to shut down. Cox and the AJC recognized the problem and responded. There is a difference.
 
Last edited:
How did they get in the contract? Management agreed to the contract. Every contract has a term to it. That gives management a chance to negotiate out of certain work rules.

The shutdown notice said:
Recent court decisions would require the Post-Gazette to operate under a 2014 labor contract.

I looked into it a bit deeper, and the contract expired years ago. Specifically, in 2017. The journalist's union has not agreed to any contract offer from the paper in 12 years, and has spent much of that time on strike. So, no, management did not agree to the contract. Rather, it was imposed by a judge.

Did that happen in Pittsburgh? This is an example of bad management. They deserve to shut down. Cox and the AJC recognized the problem and responded. There is a difference.
The company and unions have been suing each other for a decade and various bargaining groups have struck the paper at various times as well. This is an example of a labor union who thinks they can collectively bargain their way back to a bygone era, and an employer who can only give so much.

We do agree on one thing: They deserve to go out of business.
Employees deserve a fair deal, and if they couldn't get one for this long, they were never going to get one, no matter what a judge said.
 
We do agree on one thing: They deserve to go out of business.
Employees deserve a fair deal, and if they couldn't get one for this long, they were never going to get one, no matter what a judge said.

That seems to be the only way to end the litigation. Everybody loses.

It's kind of what happened to a lot of the railroad companies.
 
It's kind of what happened to a lot of the railroad companies.
Railroads always have the upper hand when it comes to labor relationships. After so long the government almost always orders the workers back. The railroads have trimmed the train crew back to mostly two (not counting Amtrak). There is the safety issue but as long as the insurance rates or wreck cost don't go up safety is just a "word" to shareholders

The real turnaround the last 50 years has been pricing freedom. If the railroad can not make over 40%, they won't take the business. Under pre Staggers act pricing they had to take business at a rate set by the government who didn't care if a railroad could pay it's bills or what the actual cost was


If you buy Railroad stock the easiest figure is follow is "operating radio" which is the percentage of revenue that is cost or expenses. The lower the number the better. Union Pacific just reported a 58.7 ratio which means for every dollar they charged the shiper they made 41.3¢.
 
They required them because they were in the contract. How did they get in the contract? Management agreed to the contract. Every contract has a term to it. That gives management a chance to negotiate out of certain work rules. I worked in three different unions in three different cities, and the work rules were different in each city. I kept moving until I found the work rules I liked. But my point is in each case, those work rules were negotiated with management. So management had an opt out point. It's not just the union.
Once organized, about the only way to not have a union... and union rules... is to have the applicable staff decertify. Generally, this is a very difficult and sometimes either dangerous or revenue jeopardizing process.

I was with two operations where such events occurred. In one case, it got to the point of personal violence and in the other pickets tried to keep employees from entering the building, slashed tires and contacted our advertisers.

In both cases, the unions wanted board ops and transmitter operators, when neither was needed or required by FCC regulations.
The article says this company has been losing money for 20 years!!!! Didn't anybody notice? Didn't anybody in ownership say we need to stop losing money? Or did they just keep approving the same budgets and the same contracts year after year??
It is a traditional family business, and they tried to endure. But you are right that it seems unreasonable to continue that way for two decades. Doing some preliminary research, though, shows that the paper did make many cuts but they were inadequate.
iHeart has been losing money for 20 years, but at least there, they keep trying to reign in costs, and they have a long term plan beyond broadcasting. Did that happen in Pittsburgh? This is an example of bad management. They deserve to shut down. Cox and the AJC recognized the problem and responded. There is a difference.
If you look at the operation's history (and there is not much to be found easily) it seems that they did as much cutting as possible for a self-printed paper.
 
That seems to be the only way to end the litigation. Everybody loses.
But there may be evidence that the things the union wanted were unreasonable. At least that is the claim of the owners of the now-deceased paper.
It's kind of what happened to a lot of the railroad companies.
The railroads merged, with no major line going out of business. Some small railroads in areas where there was a decline in industry did, indeed, cease to run... but the significant ones merged and expanded. In fact, much of Warren Buffet's earlier investment successes were in railroads where his organization assembled mergers of two or more railroads into a larger one.
 
Once organized, about the only way to not have a union... and union rules... is to have the applicable staff decertify.

That's not what I was talking about. I was talking about negotiations.

If you look at the operation's history (and there is not much to be found easily) it seems that they did as much cutting as possible for a self-printed paper.

So this is the logical conclusion. The union journalists are now unemployed.
 
I can't be impartial because I am an Union Pensioner, but the easiest way to get concessions from an Union is to check the agreement for a "force de majeure" clause if you are losing money. Let the union see the P & L statements. Be truthful. The last thing a union wants is for you to go bankrupt*. Also sooner or later you will realize a generous profit sharing program in the long run will make you more money by attracting folks who want to be payed for extra performance.

*Of course have an over priced lawyer who does accounting too to check to see if bankruptcy would be friendly to your capital structure. This is one time it might be time to "pay too much" and get the best legal help available to save money in the long run
 
I can't be impartial because I am an Union Pensioner, but the easiest way to get concessions from an Union is to check the agreement for a "force de majeure" clause if you are losing money. Let the union see the P & L statements. Be truthful. The last thing a union wants is for you to go bankrupt*. Also sooner or later you will realize a generous profit sharing program in the long run will make you more money by attracting folks who want to be payed for extra performance.

*Of course have an over priced lawyer who does accounting too to check to see if bankruptcy would be friendly to your capital structure. This is one time it might be time to "pay too much" and get the best legal help available to save money in the long run
 


Back
Top Bottom