Don't people like radio broadcasters have a union they

belong to like actors do? If they don't have such an organization at AAR, it seems they should get a union going for them? If there is a union they belong to, shouldn't the union be in negotiations over the Mike Malloy firing? For a liberal organization, they seem to be missing the backbone of liberalism, labor and unionization.

That's the radio union.

But contracts are contracts (or lack of).

AFTRA doesn't guarantee work, but they handle more work conditions stuff.

Maybe we should be pressuring them to look into the firing. I know that you can be fired and belong to a union, but it has to be for a good reason if the employee complains to their representative and the representative has a duty to make the managers prove their case.

http://aftra.org


http://aftra.org/member/documents/Station_List_7_13_06.pdf

This is just getting silly.

Most liberals should belong to unions and if they don't then they aren't really practicing their political ideology as such if they aren't working towards that goal.

Your sentence doesn't make much sense to me. Businesses are not union but management. Employees of business should make every attempt to get unionized because they aren't management. But you know that don't you?

Part of my company is union, part of it is corporate. A promotion took me out of the union side 7 years ago and I'm glad to be out of it. I have no desire to belong to one and I enjoy the company I work for. I know each union environment is different though and that there are obviously many Unions that are extremely valuable. But that doesn't mean that every liberal should want to join a Union, as that's just ridiculous in my opinion.

you are a liberal. That's the way it's structured. Other than that I know a lot of non-political workers don't like to pay the union dues so they don't want to join the union, like libertarians don't want to pay taxes.

However, liberals who know their history, do want to be unionized. They know that the only thing left when there are no unions are lower and lower wages and worker exploitation down the road. We are seeing a lot of that happening today. I don't think there would be this immigration problem if there were strong unions because the union would make sure every worker hired would be paid the going union wage. They probably would do a better job of screening out unauthorized workers too.

It's ironic that it's the immigrants in the hospitality industry that are now bringing back the unions. They know the benefits of unionization.

"Most liberals should belong to unions and if they don't then they aren't really practicing their political ideology as such if they aren't working towards that goal."

So, to be a liberal I have to join a union?

Remember all the good old days that Rush Limbaugh and the others talk about in the forties and fifties when a guy could own a home and support a family on his wages? Well, this was because all those blue collar jobs were unionized, a fact that Rush and Co. fail to mention.

The Taft-Hartley Act in 1948 began the erosion of the unions because non-union workers could be hired and because it was easier to hire scabs during strikes. Ronald Reagan practically killed the unions when he broke the air traffic controllers union.

So today, we have lower wages, longer working hours and millions of jobs outsourced because of the slow erosion of the benefits brought to the working class once by unions. Workers have no recourse if they are fired or treated unfairly on the job.

It's time to bring the unions back and the only people who can bring them back is you, labor, if you are in fact a worker and not an owner.

WalMart, the meat industry, immigrants are all examples of how corporations are abusing the people that make them rich. I hope that unions do flourish because it will be one of the most effective ways of fighting the corporate interests in America. You have my support in this.

I am in a position that is white collar. And yes, even in the companies that I've worked for I've seen the abuse that management heaps upon their employees.

However, I'm also in a position that if the company I'm working for is abusive, I can tell them to f* off and be reasonably assured I can find another job. Trust me, I understand that the majority of workers in this country do not have that luxury. However, being forced to join a union also makes me uncomfortable.

That being said, you are probably correct.

I was fortunate to attend a talk that Eric Schlosser, the author of Fast Food Nation, gave at a local college. He made a fantastically articulate case for unionization. He broke down all of the common lies that corporations give about why unions are evil. I wish I had it on tape.

Thanks for posting. It's really given me something to think about.

loading dock is making better money and has better hours and benefits than you do, it gives you some bartering power with management as well. I had a supervisor who threw a hissy because her check one week was less than my union paycheck and she had worked many more hours with more responsibility than I had. She was able to get that remedied in the managers office by making the comparison and having a hissy.

are union members?

Much like my current thinking, it's easier to give lip service to the ideal than to actually become an active supporter.

God, it would be hilarious if a congressional union went on strike. But then again, what do congressmen have to strike about. Low wages? Health insurance? Too many hours?

If perhaps they were dependent on us the voters to determine their salaries, health care and other benefits as well as vacations etc. I'm sure they would want a union to arbitrate for them.

management.

and are able to give themselves vacations, raises and other perks by legislation. They act as their own union, however, I'm sure many were union members in former jobs or came from families whose breadwinners were union members.

Rush Limbaugh and Howard Stern aside,

You can be fired for looking at your boss funny.

You can be fired for hitting the GM's car in the parking lot.

You can be fired for being the wrong gender (although you will probably be told, "budget cuts"), if the PD thinks you are the wrong gender.

You can be fired for being too old ("the audience doesn't relate" or "you're not relating to the audience").

You can be fired for saying anything negative about your station in public.

In broadcasting, you can be fired for just about any reason management wants to fire you.



Most people who are fired are fired either because they aren't cutting the mustard, they're undermining management, or they are just a pain in the ass to work with.

I can see maybe firing a guy who isn't bringing in the listenership, but I'm certain that isn't Mike or my local centrist leaning affiliate would have dumped him long before now. So if a guy is getting the audience like say Howard Stern, it seems stupid to fire him no matter how much of a pain in the ass he is.

I mean that's show biz. So it seems this is where the union should be stepping in like an ombudsman to make sure the firing is for legitimate reasons not just bad blood. If there was a contract involved too it seems this should be a legal matter too that would be handled by lawyers.

Since Mike broadcasted from Atlanta and he sort of had his own staff and set up, I can't imagine him being a pain in the ass to anyone except the guy who does the controls. Would this guy be a suit?

You'd have to look for AAR to issue a statement, and then try to interpret it. Rarely will you get a real, specific reason for someone's firing made public, because they won't want to interfere with their ability to get work in the future.

If someone is getting an audience the size of Stern, I'd agree. But Stern's been fired a few times, himself, IIRC. No one who's anyone in radio has never been fired.