NPR Avoids Strike

http://www.politico.com/media/tipsheets/morning-media?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_daily202

A last minute deal between NPR and the Union representing its employees was reached last Friday avoiding a strike.

Lucky for them. Had NPR been off for even a short time, many of its listeners may not have bothered to come back.

umfan said:

Had NPR been off for even a short time, many of its listeners may not have bothered to come back.

Click to expand...

Maybe you've never worked for a union-staffed radio station. I have. I was in AFTRA. When we went on strike, our station didn't go off the air. It was staffed by management. That's what would have happened here. Or they could have used their affiliate-based stringers who are not in the union.

The second thing to know is this ONLY affects Morning Edition and All Things Considered. Not the radio stations. So the stations would have stayed on the air as well. The only change would have been the on-air hosts.

The third thing is the loyalty of NPR listeners. During fund drives, some regular programming is pre-empted by fund-raising. The listeners always come back.

So, I can take it from your post that, had management had to staff in place of the usual hosts, it would've had zero impact.

Good to know the regular hosts are so easily replaced and/or NPR listeners simply couldn't tell the difference.

Further good to know that NPR would've resorted to scabs (the stringers you mention) with nary a second thought.

umfan said:

So, I can take it from your post that, had management had to staff in place of the usual hosts, it would've had zero impact.

Good to know the regular hosts are so easily replaced and/or NPR listeners simply couldn't tell the difference.

Further good to know that NPR would've resorted to scabs (the stringers you mention) with nary a second thought.

Click to expand...

You're making up a lot of things there.

"Zero impact?" I don't know. Depends on how long the strike is.

"NPR listeners simply couldn't tell the difference" I'm sure they can tell the difference. But the show must go on. I was responding to your post that assumed NPR would go off the air. That's not how any broadcast operation deals with a strike regardless of who the company is.

"Nary a second thought" How do you come up with that idea? What would you prefer? There are some unions (in the federal government, police, etc) who are not allowed to strike. How do you think management respond to strikes by employees? How would your company deal with the union?

Are the hosts of the show part of the union, or was this just about the behind the scenes employees?

justgladtobehere said:

Are the hosts of the show part of the union, or was this just about the behind the scenes employees?

Click to expand...

Both hosts and production staff are in AFTRA.

My point was that NPR, as an organization, generally seems to be supportive of things like collective bargaining. The fact, by your assertion, that they'd be so quick to use scab labor strikes me as hypocritical.

I really don't care what they do, I just want CPB to go away. Both NPR and PBS would likely survive, in some form, sustained by viewer/listener donations and the corporate money they take under the guise of 'grants' that they then offer advertising for at the end of their programs.

In the big picture, public radio and television is not very significant at all. Admittedly, the amount they get from the federal budget is minimal. It would just be better if that were directed to debt repayment as opposed to spending it on the CPB which adds zero value to the taxpayer.

umfan said:

My point was that NPR, as an organization, generally seems to be supportive of things like collective bargaining.

Click to expand...

How have you arrived at that conclusion? Just about every major broadcaster is a union shop. Fox News is a union shop. Hannity is in AFTRA. Do you think he's supportive of collective bargaining?

You base your opinion that they'd be "so quick to use scab labor" on something *I* said, not something anyone from the company said. Honestly I have no idea what they'd do. I don't work there. But I'm pretty sure they wouldn't just shut down, which was your assertion. I doubt any broadcaster would just shut down. I believe broadcasters have a responsibility to continue to broadcast regardless of their internal labor situation. Don't you? My experience with unions comes from being an AFTRA member myself and watching a major commercial broadcaster handle a strike. My expectation is that NPR would handle it in a similar way. But I don't really know.

umfan said:

I really don't care what they do, I just want CPB to go away.

Click to expand...

Yet the Republicans in Congress don't agree, and as I posted elsewhere, they have already decided to approve the latest CPB appropriation. Why? Because it's exactly what Republicans believe: Giving federal money to the states. The states decide if NPR is providing value to the taxpayers. So far, they believe it does.

Are you then saying you don't know what you're talking about? You tried to come off as knowing, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but you really don't know so I'll discount your assertions accordingly, then.

The budget is in its infant stages and CPB remains an easy target for elimination. Putting it in could just be so there is something easy to remove in negotiations. Any dollar spent on CPB is a dollar wasted.

umfan said:

Are you then saying you don't know what you're talking about?

Click to expand...

I explained in my first post on this subject that I was a former AFTRA member who worked in a union shop that went on strike. Those are my qualifications to speak on this issue. Not that I represent NPR. I explained that clearly earlier. I'd suggest that gives me credibility to speak on this topic.

What are yours?

As for the budget, the Constitution is pretty clear which branch of government determines how money is spent, and it's the Congress, not the president.

Here is the article on CPB funding. Please note that the current President of CPB is the former co-chair of the Republican National Committee. That might explain why Republicans support continued CPB funding:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ne...bcommittee-recommends-full-cpb-funding/167146

Yes, you said that, but then backtracked.

So, you were in AFTRA. I've been a union rep and actually walked a picket line. I have zero doubt that NPR would've used scabs if need be. They are neither well managed nor well programmed. I'd be fine with simply not listening were it not for the public subsidy they apparently need because they're so poorly managed. There may be a line in the budget for it at this point, but again, it's so it can be jettisoned when the time comes.

My question stands, you asserted that NPR would, based on your alleged experience, then retracted it. Do you know what you're talking about, or not? If yes, then NPR is a potential scab house. If not, then you don't know, your AFTRA background notwithstanding.

umfan said:

If not, then you don't know, your AFTRA background notwithstanding.

Click to expand...

What does the article in your lead post say? Did the company settle with the union? Yes. If so, then a strike was averted, and your question is irrelevant.

The only people who actually know the answer are in management. That's not me. I never said I was in NPR management. Show me where I retracted something. I never changed or retracted anything I said in this thread, and I'm not retracting anything now.

NPR's funding has nothing to do with whether or not they're "poorly managed." Their funding is based in the Public Broadcasting Act. The funding process is in the law. The Congress would have to change the law to defund CPB. I should be asking you if you know what you're talking about because you obviously know nothing about public radio or how it's funded.