Friday, July 29, 2011

NABET-CWA NBCU Negotiation Update



Bulletin #24


NABET-CWA/NBCU Negotiations

New York City
July 29, 2011

NABET-CWA and NBC Universal negotiators last met in New York City on Friday, June 3, 2011. While the lines of communication have, as always, remained open between the parties, bargaining activity from the Company has been stagnant for most of the past seven weeks.

On Monday, July 25, 2011, representatives from NBCU Labor Relations forwarded a 43-page package of proposed contractual changes to the Union, and asked that your Bargaining Committee formally present the package to the membership for ratification consideration.

The Company’s offer contained a condition that “…the NABET-CWA bargaining committee agrees to unanimously recommend this Memorandum of Agreement for ratification by the NABET-CWA membership.”

Sector President James C. Joyce told Executive Vice President of Labor Relations, Andrew Herzig, that while the Union’s Bargaining Committee would carefully review the package, and give full consideration to presenting the package to the membership for ratification, it is unlikely that the Committee would agree to recommend any package that did not meet the standards of the Union.

During the past few days, Union negotiators spent considerable time evaluating and discussing the Company’s offer.

In light of these intolerably lengthy and unnecessarily protracted negotiations, we are disappointed to report to you that the Company’s current offer falls far short of a contract that merits your acceptance.

You deserve much better.

The NABET-CWA Network Negotiating Committee, through Chief Spokesperson James Joyce, has informed Mr. Herzig that we would agree to present the package to the membership, but the Union’s unanimous recommendation to the membership will be to reject the offer.

Mr. Herzig replied to President Joyce that the Company will need additional time to consider the Union’s decision and to respond.

We will inform you as to the Company’s reply once we receive a response from Mr. Herzig.

Locals 11, 31, 41 and 53 are planning to conduct informational meetings for their respective memberships. Details regarding those meetings will be announced shortly. As always, please ignore all rumors.

NABET-CWA Network Negotiating Committee

NABET-CWA
501 3rd Street NW
Washington, DC 20001
202-434-1100

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

'American Idol' Producer Fremantle Reaches 3-Year Deal With IATSE

By Joshua L. Weinstein

The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees has reached a three-year agreement with Fremantle Media.

The agreement covers domestic programs produced for network and basic cable.

Fremantle's programs include "American Idol," "America's Got Talent" and the upcoming "The X Factor."

As for IATSE, it represents makeup artists, wardrobe, camera operators, electricians, props, carpenters, and other production-crew workers.

"This new enhanced agreement underlines our commitment to working with Fremantle Media North America on some of the biggest programming brands in television," the union's president said in a written statement.

In the statement, Fremantle's executive VP of production, Dan Goldberg, said, "When it comes to production, we pride ourselves on a consistent high level of quality and creativity. Members of the IA are the best at their crafts, so it only makes sense to work with them all the time."

Last November, the union called a strike on NBC's "The Biggest Loser," which is produced by Reveille Productions, 25/7 Productions and 3 Ball Productions. The strike lasted two weeks.

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Federal Appeals Court Rejects Relaxed Cross-Ownership Rule

By Harry A. Jessell
TVNewsCheck

In remanding the relaxed 2008 version of the 35-year-old broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership rule to the FCC for another look, the U.S. Appeals Court said the agency's decision to allow common ownership in large markets had "failed to meet the notice and comment requirements" in reviewing the rule as required by law. The court also affirmed the TV duopoly rule and other local owneship limits.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia today threw out the FCC's 2008 rule permitting common ownership of broadcast stations and newspapers in large markets, while upholding rules limiting TV station duopolies and other local ownership restrictions. The federal appeals court also ordered a further review of efforts to promote minority and female ownership of media outlets.

The court also said that the FCC failed to demonstrate how its Diversity Order structured primarily to benefit small business entities (and cited in the crossownership rulemaking) would enhance minority and female ownership of media outlets. That has also been remanded to the Commission for further examination. Since the FCC had long ago determined that a return to its previous preferences based on race and/or gender would not pass constitutional muster, the court ruling may not leave the Commission much room to maneuver.

The rules had been challenged by groups opposed to media consolidation who are trying to preserve or strengthen them as well as by broadcasters and newspaper publishers who argued for getting rid of them or loosening them further. In remanding the relaxed 2008 version of the 35-year-old broadcast-newspaper crossownership rule to the FCC for another look, the panel said the agency had "failed to meet the notice and comment requirements" in reviewing the rule as required by law.

In essence, the rule would have allowed newspaper-broadcast combinations in the top 20 markets and in smaller markets under certain limited circumstances. Media owners felt the rule was a modest concession to the previous ban.

In affirming the FCC TV duopoly rule, which limits the markets where a broadcasters may own two stations, the panel said it was not persuaded by the broadcasters' argument that the rule was "overly restrictive."

According to the panel, the FCC, in choosing to retain the rule in 2008, did not ignore the explosion of other media outlets; it simply concluded that the rule remained necessary to promote competition among stations within markets.

The court also affirmed that the ownership rules are constitutional, rejecting arguments that they violated the First and Fifth Amendment rights of broadcasters and publishers.

The panel said the FCC rules do not violate the First Amendment because they "are rationally related to substantial government interests in promoting competition and protecting viewpoint diversity."

And the panel ruled that there is "no basis" for the claim that the rules are aimed at manipulating content. "These rules apply regardless of the content of the programming," it said.

Cox Media Group and Media General argued that the broadcast-newspaper crossownership rule violated newspapers' right to equal protection under the First Amendment by treating newspapers differently from other media.

The panel said the argument lacked merit. "The Supreme Court has upheld this treatment ... and we are bound by that precedent," it said.

The panel also declined to toss out the Supreme Court's long-established scarcity doctrine that says the government may regulate broadcasting because broadcast channels are scarce.

The abundance of non-broadcast media does not render broadcast spectrum less scarce, the court said. "The Supreme Court's justification for the ... doctrine remains as true today as it was in 2004 — indeed, in 1975 ...."

Over the objections of consolidation foes, the court decided not to undo the FCC's grant of permanent waivers of the crossownership rule that allow two companies operate TV stations and newspapers in five markets — Gannett in Phoenix and Media General in Myrtle Beach-Florence, S.C.; Columbus, Ga.; Panama City, Fla., and Tri-Cities, Tenn.-Va.

"Although we have several concerns about these permanent waivers, we conclude that we do not have jurisdiction to reach the merits of ... petitioners' claims," the court said.

Reaction to the ruling from the National Association of Broadcasters was muted. "There have been sweeping changes in the media landscape since most of the broadcast ownership rules were adopted decades ago," said EVP Dennis Wharton in a statement. "NAB believes that modest reform of rules to allow free and local broadcasters to compete successfully in a universe of national pay TV and radio platforms is warranted."

Meanwhile, Free Press, the group that has been leading the charge against structural deregulation, applauded the ruling.

“Today’s decision is a sweeping victory for the public interest,” said Corie Wright, policy counsel of Free Press. “In rejecting the arguments of the industry and exposing the FCC's failures, the court wisely concluded that competition in the media — not more concentration — will provide Americans with the local news and information they need and want.”

The court also affirmed that the rules are "not only constitutional but necessary to preserve competition, as well as to promote diverse sources of news and information for the American people,” said Wright, who argued the case along with Andrew Jay Schwartzman of Media Access Project, on behalf of Prometheus Radio Project, Media Alliance, the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ and Free Press.

Media owners seeking relief from the rules were awaiting the decision so that the FCC could get on with another review of the ownership rules, which it is mandated by law to do every four years. While the case based on the 2008 action has been pending at the Third Circuit the FCC has been pretty much unable to complete work on its 2010 Quadrennial Review of its ownership rules. The court said the issues it remanded should now be incorporated into the 2010 Quadrennial Review. The FCC is currently undertaking another review of its media ownership rules. In a statement, the agency said that they ‘’should be able to take appropriate steps to ensure that the nation’s media marketplace remains healthy and vibrant.”

Broadcast Union News: The rules struck down by the court had lifted the ban on cross ownership in the 20 largest media markets, reducing diversity and limiting access for new media outlets. ”This decision is a vindication of the public’s right to have a diverse media environment. We won on almost every point,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior vice president and policy director of the Media Access Project, which represented Prometheus Radio Project in challenging the changes. "The FCC majority knew that its effort to allow more media concentration was politically and legally unworkable, so it tried to end-run the procedural protections that are designed to give the public the right to participate in agency proceedings. ”

NLRB ALLEGES WRONGFUL TERMINATION OF UNION SUPPORTER AT ITV IN WRITERS GUILD, EAST CAMPAIGN

NEW YORK CITY – After a three-month investigation, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has just issued a formal complaint against ITV/Kirstall for firing a long-time producer for his support of the Writers Guild of America, East’s (WGAE) efforts to organize ITV employees. The NLRB hearing is expected to begin in late July.

A majority of writers and producers at ITV Studios, which produces shows including Steven Seagal: Lawman, The First 48 and Four Weddings, voted for WGAE representation in a secret ballot conducted in December 2010. Since that time, the company has tied up certification of the majority vote with various legal maneuvers. About 80 people will become WGAE members when the vote is certified and will bargain for health and pension benefits, improved compensation, and reasonable working hours.

“We are pleased the NLRB is pursuing this case. No one should be fired for supporting a union and seeking a voice on the job,” said Lowell Peterson, WGAE Executive Director. “While the NLRB’s decision is good news, ITV continues to ignore its employees’ vote for Guild representation. We urge ITV to reinstate the employee and to come to the bargaining table so we can negotiate a fair and equitable contract for all the employees who do the work that makes the company successful.”

ITV is one of three NLRB elections the WGAE has won its industry-wide campaign to organize the largely non-unionized non-fiction sector of the TV industry. Other wins include Atlas Media (Biography, Dr. G: Medical Examiner, American Eats) and Lion Television (Cash Cab for Discovery Network, Megadrive for MTV, and History Detectives and America Revealed for PBS).

The Writers Guild of America, East, AFL-CIO, is a labor union representing writers in motion pictures, television, cable, digital media, and broadcast news. The WGAE conducts programs, seminars, and events on issues of interest to, and on behalf of, writers. In addition, it represents writers’ interests on the legislative level.

For more information on the Writers Guild of America, East, visit www.wgaeast.org.

For all editorial and press inquiries, please contact:

Elana Levin
Director of Communications
212-767-7809
elevin@.wgaeast.org

WGA Stats Reveal Paltry New Media Payday

By Richard Horgan
FishbowlLA
July 6, 2011

In recent years, newspaper and TV coverage of contract renewal negotiations between the Writers Guild of America and Hollywood has placed great emphasis on the new media landscape, and how online streams of member content should be compensated.

Thanks to the latest stats from WGA West, it is possible to quantify just how well (or not so well) west coast scribes are doing these days on the Internet. According to the figures, 2010 new media residuals for west coast union members amounted to a total of $2.63 million.

At first glance, not too bad. But when you divide this amount by the WGA West’s membership total of 12,000, it amounts to an average per member of just $219.16.

That’s barely enough to cover the cost of an awards season tuxedo rental and dry clean. It’s better than nothing, obviously, and actually as a whole a 24% increase over the previous year. But the average sum shows that the union’s new media equation still has a long way to go before it can be truly deemed a Hollywood success story.

Monday, July 4, 2011

Tribune Company ‘Deal From Hell’: A Tale of Greed and Hypocrisy

By Sharon Waxman

It’s hard to say who comes out worse in James O’Shea’s new book, “The Deal from Hell: How Moguls and Wall Street Plundered Great American Newspapers” -- the Tribune Company itself Sam Zell, Mark Willes, the Chandler family, JP Morgan or any one of the myriad senior executives who cut the bottom line while pocketing huge bonuses.

The journalists don’t come out looking so great either.

I already knew the story and even so, reading this tale of bad-to-worse makes me seriously depressed.

Why did anyone think that a trash-talking billionaire, Zell, who proudly stated he knew and cared nothing about newspapers, would be able to save The Los Angeles Times and other Tribune papers?

Here’s how it turned out: bankruptcy, and an atmosphere so hostile to journalism that talent fled while everybody else cowered in fear.


Sam Zell
 O’Shea does a service in laying out precisely how much precious cash was wasted on bonuses to senior managers to close deals that had no long-term strategy for success, investment bankers with no stake in the future of the company and lawyers sorting through the bankruptcy.

For those who value newspapers and what they contribute to society, the numbers are enough to turn your stomach:

* $283 million in investment banking fees to close the $7 billion “deal from hell” -- Zell’s creative takeover of the Tribune Company, which used an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) to avoid taxes.

* $41 million in salary, bonus and stock to Tribune CEO Dennis Fitzsimons, who presided over the decline of the company, for closing the deal.

* $10 million in bonus, salary, stock to John Reardon, president of Tribune Broadcasting.

* $13.8 million to Don Grenesko, CFO, bonus, salary and stock.

* $300 million in legal fees over the bankruptcy fight.

That would be more than enough cash to run the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune for several years. In other words, they could have made the product better, instead of coming up with endless ways to refinance and cut operating costs.

But that’s starting at the end of the story.

O’Shea spent three decades at the Chicago Tribune and then led the Tribune-owned Los Angeles Times for a year, giving him a front-row seat to the historic drama of decline at a great newspaper company.

He sums it up succinctly: “The greed, incompetence, corruption, hypocrisy and arrogance of people who put their interests ahead of the public” add up to a tale of corporate disaster.

As we headed into the 21st century, the broad strokes were well known.

At the Chicago Tribune, as at the Los Angeles Times and other papers, circulation was in decline, advertising was also ebbing, the internet was on the rise and ideas about how to counter these trends were remarkably simple: fire people, cut costs.

O’Shea does a good job of sketching the historic backdrop of the Tribune Company, and reminds us that this is not the first major dislocation in American newspapers. Thousands were laid off in the 1930s, many never to find work again, as cities with a half-dozen newspapers found markets to sustain only a few.

And again, he reminds us that newspapers had been severely downsizing non-editorial staff since the mid-1970s, as technological efficiencies reduced the need for manpower at the printing presses.

Between 1975 and 1990, he tells us, production staffs were cut by 50 percent or more. Not surprisingly, this coincided with Tribune Company going public in 1975, and pushing hard to increase profit margins.

Which it did.

Heirs of Henry Chandler, who married the daughter of L.A. Times founder Harrison Gray Otis, share in the trusts that had long controlled the ownership of Times Mirror.

After more than 120 years, the Chandlers got out of the newspaper business.

The much-celebrated and maligned Chandler family that once dominated the civic, cultural and political life of Southern California through its control of the Los Angeles Times agreed to what had previously been unthinkable, selling its entire stake in Tribune Co., the newspaper's parent, cashing in on their historic legacy.

Calculations by Forbes of the family's collective net worth, based on the stock price of $88 on the day of the sale, showed a 35% jump to $3.8 billion from the prior to the transaction estimate of $2.8 billion.

Tribune had been bought, merged with the L.A. Times and bought again, each time by partners not particularly interested in the legacy of the journalism that is the essence of America’s great newspapers.

Each new owner and dealmaker thought that he could fix it by cutting further. No one had the thought that investing in the new direction journalism was going made any sense.

Much more than “Page One,” the new documentary about The New York Times, the “Deal from Hell” gives us a serious and informed view of the destruction of an American journalistic institution (or two of them, in this case).

O’Shea shares some fascinating inside stories based on his front-row seat as editor in chief and his long-time relationships with people who gave him interviews for the book.

We learn that the famed “cereal killer” Mark Willes, the manager who came from General Mills to be CEO of Times Mirror in 1995 with a business-first approach, was not all bad. (Not counting the time he brought in consultants who declared that the shredded paper “smelled like fish,” where it needed to smell like “Starbucks and coffee cake.”)

Those of us who only knew Willes as a clueless bottom-liner responsible for the Staples scandal may be surprised to learn that he vastly improved the financial outlook at the Times in the late 1990s. He shut the money-losing New York Newsday and cut jobs, along with the newsstand price, and created new sections and additions to broaden the reader base.

Under Willes, circulation rose, operating profits soared and earnings per share increased more than 50 percent, O’Shea writes.

It wasn’t enough for the Chandlers, the family that held the controlling stake in Times Mirror. Despite being paid $2.1 billion in dividends under Willes’ tenure, the Chandlers still decided to cash out further. Without telling Willes, they sold the company to Tribune.

According to former managing editor Leo Wolinsky, Willes would wander the halls and weep after this stunning betrayal.


Dennis Fitzsimons
 There’s delicious gossip in Chicago rube (and Trib CEO) Dennis Fitzsimons not knowing that he needed a passport to travel to Istanbul, and revealing his main source of knowledge about the Iraq war -- his friend Geraldo Rivera. The sexist, potty-mouthed dirt on Zell and his frat-boy buddies has been well documented previously by David Carr at The New York Times.

But the journalists don’t look too swell, either. They were arrogant and clueless about the need for change in their long-protected newsrooms. They were slow to understand that this was a battle for survival, slow to adopt the changes the internet demanded.

In his reporting, O’Shea relies too heavily for my taste on Wolinsky, a senior editor in the L.A. Times newsroom. And he has high praise for John Montorio, someone whose reputation in the newsroom and beyond was not consistent with that view.

These are among those who failed to push toward the new type of journalism that defines our era -- immediate, informed by a strong point of view and open to interaction with the reader. (Oddly, Wolinsky praises Willes for believing that “our future was squarely in print. He ignored the internet, thought it was just a fad.”)

Tribune, about to emerge from bankruptcy in a matter of months, is one of the most extreme examples of what has happened to American newspapers in the past decade. It is an extraordinary saga of greed, arrogance, self-interest and lack of vision.

At the end of bankruptcy, the Tribune Company is likely to end up being run by Jamie Dimon and his JP Morgan Chase.

It’s the end game for Tribune Company, and we are all the worse for it.

Friday, July 1, 2011

New York City Central Labor Council AFL-CIO June 2011 Report

After a three month hiatus in which the New York State AFL-CIO President, Denis Hughes coordinated a 21 amendment redesign of the New York City Central Labor Council constitution, a meeting was held on June 9, 2011 at which the 21 amendments to the constitution were presented to the delegates for review.

Vincent Alvarez, newly elected President
NYCCLC-AFL-CIO
At that meeting Vincent Alvarez from IBEW Local 3 was nominated for President.

Arthur Cheliotes from CWA Local 1180 and Janella Hinds from UFT were nominated for Secretary Treasurer.

NABET-CWA Local 16 Secretary/Treasurer, Rich Gelber, made a seconding speech for Arthur Cheliotes.

At the June 30, 2011 NYCCLC meeting, attended by 318 delegates from 21 unions representing 590,827 members, approved the new constitution, which had been pre-approved by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka.

On instruction from the national AFL-CIO, the package of constitution changes was voted on intact, with no separation of issues permitted, to the consternation of several delegates, many of whom felt that each of the 21 ammendments should have been discussed and voyed upon individually.


Vincent Alvarez from IBEW Local 3 was elected President.


Janella Hinds and Vincent Alvarez
 Janella Hinds was elected Secretary Treasurer, Arthur Cheliotes having dropped out in expectation of a run for a new, as yet not created Executive Vice-President position to be proposed at the next NYCCLC meeting.
 
An additional constitution change, submitted by Arthur Cheliotes at the June 9 meeting, and read, but not voted on yet, was discussed at the June 30 meeting. This ammendment would create 6 Senior Vice President (SVP) positions, to be appointed by the CLC President and ratified by the Executive Board. These new SVPs would be tasked with promoting diversity.
Respectfully Submitted,

Rich Gelber and Robert R. Daraio
Delegates NYCCLC-AFL-CIO
NABET-CWA Local 16

New York City Central Labor Council Elects New President

Vincent Alvarez Will Lead Largest Labor Council in the Country

by New York State AFL-CIO



Last night, Vincent Alvarez was elected President of the New York City Central Labor Council, the largest such council in the country, representing more than one million union members throughout the city.

Brother Alvarez was unanimously elected by the umbrella organization's delegate body to serve a four year term. Earlier in the evening, delegates voted to amend the constitution, making the President a full-time officer of the Council.

A 21-year member of Local 3 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and a native of Staten Island, Mr. Alvarez won the esteem of union leaders over two decades of volunteer work with the Council.

“He is the most honest and decent guy you’ll ever meet,” said Ed Ott, a former executive director of the Council who is now a distinguished lecturer in labor studies at the City University of New York’s Murphy Institute. “This is what the Council needs. It will reassure the members that the place is now in good hands.”

Upon his election, Vincent Alvarez, a member of IBEW Local #3, stated, "It is an incredible honor to lead this Council at such a critically important time for working families. Working men and women face immense challenges, both in the workplace and in their everyday lives. Our city, state and country are continuing to struggle through one of the most difficult economic periods in the last 80 years. And during that time, we have seen workers suffer dramatically.

"It's time the New York City labor movement raises its collective voice and says "enough is enough" to policies that adversely affect working people. We have the talent, we have the strength and we have the resolve to address these challenges. And together, we will prevail."

In his address to the delegates, Brother Alvarez also outlined his vision of the Central Labor Council under his leadership. "We are committed to working tirelessly at putting together a competent organization, comprised of intelligent and dedicated individuals poised to deal with today's challenges and who are ready, willing and able to serve this labor movement. Tonight I pledge to you that working together as one movement – public sector, private sector and building trades – we will redouble our efforts to find effective solutions to complex problems affecting working people."

Janella Hinds
Delegates also elected Janella Hinds, a member of the United Federation of Teachers, to the newly created position of Secretary Treasurer. Sister Hinds has been a labor activist for fifteen years, and is a skilled negotiator who has served on numerous negotiating committees advocating for member rights.

The four year term for each of the newly elected officers begins immediately.


Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Matt Loeb of IATSE takes a more aggressive role

IATSE President Loeb has been shaking things up inside the entertainment industry's largest union. He's willing to thrust it into high-profile skirmishes on behalf of the nearly 120,000 behind-the-scenes workers who are its members.


“I want the IA to have the highest profile it can have and be as strong as it can be,” says union President Matt Loeb. “Having a solid membership that understands why the union is there and what it does for them is key.” (Bob Chamberlin, Los Angeles Times / June 21, 2011)
“I want the IA to have the highest profile it can have and be as strong as it can be,” says union President Matt Loeb. “Having a solid membership that understands why the union is there and what it does for them is key.” (Bob Chamberlin, Los Angeles Times / June 21, 2011)

By Richard Verrier, Los Angeles Times


Bono
When rock star Bono and members of his band U2 recently showed up at the Burton Cummings Theatre in Winnipeg, Canada, they were greeted not with cheers but jeers from more than 80 members of one of Hollywood's most powerful unions.

Their beef: U2's decision to hire a nonunion crew to film a documentary of the show that the band had come to finish shooting. "This is nothing short of union-busting," declared Matt Loeb, president of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees.

Taking on the world's most famous rock group was just the latest example of Loeb's willingness to thrust the typically low-key union into high-profile skirmishes on behalf of the nearly 120,000 stage hands, camera operators, grips, costume designers and others who work behind the scenes on scores of movies and TV shows.

The IA, as it is known, in November waged its first high-profile strike in Los Angeles in nearly two decades, in a highly publicized showdown with the producers of the hit reality TV show "The Biggest Loser."

Unlike other Hollywood unions such as the Screen Actors Guild and the Writers Guild of America, the IA has traditionally avoided public confrontations with employers. It was an approach espoused by the union's longtime former leader Tom Short, who placed a premium on maintaining smooth relations with the studios and keeping labor peace — even if it meant occasionally calling out other guild leaders for their tactics or militant rhetoric.

But since taking over from Short nearly three years ago, Loeb has put the IA on a more aggressive course, shaking things up inside the entertainment industry's largest union. In one of his first interviews as president, Loeb spoke to The Times about the recent strike, as well as a controversial and ambitious plan to extend union contracts to visual-effects workers and his efforts to create a more open culture inside a labor organization that dates to 1886.

"I want the IA to have the highest profile it can have and be as strong as it can be," he said. "Having a solid membership that understands why the union is there and what it does for them is key."

Loeb, 46, grew up in Cleveland and got his start in the entertainment industry in 1988 in New York, where he worked for a local painters union, cleaning up sets and handling timecards. He soon became the de facto shop steward and quickly rose through the ranks of the IA, heading its East Council and the union's first movie and TV division. When Short abruptly resigned in July 2008 after 14 years on the job, the IA's executive board tapped Loeb to succeed him.

Tom Short and Matt Loeb
Loeb is reluctant to draw comparisons with his predecessor, saying he prefers to focus on the future. But his style is clearly different from that of Short, who was credited for unifying a formerly fractious collection of local unions and increasing the IA's ranks while also clashing with dissidents who chafed at his mercurial management style.

"I want to be approachable," Loeb said. "I want people to feel like they can bring a good idea or a bad idea or disagree with me. I believe if I'm not getting input, I've lost something and I don't have the tools that I need to lead."

Short could not be reached for comment.

As part of Loeb's outreach, the IA has hired a research firm to survey the views of union members on the union's health and pension plans and will hold a series of "town meetings" in the next year to discuss the state of the healthcare industry and what changes they would like to see.

It's part of an effort to rally the dozens of local guilds that fall under the IA's umbrella to be more involved in negotiations to replace the current contract, which expires in July 2012.

"He wants to hear directly what members have to say, and that's new,'' said Steven Poster, president of the International Cinematographers Guild, which is part of the IA.

Loeb also has been trying to improve relations with other unions, especially the Teamsters, which represents location managers and casting directors. The two unions have a long history of friction, clashing over turf. Last year, Loeb reached out to Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa, son of the late Teamsters boss.

"I said we ought to be helping each other and building strength by standing together," Loeb said. Hoffa agreed and the two men signed a so-called mutual assistance pact to work together.

Loeb said that at a time when many unions are losing membership, one of his chief priorities is to expand the IA's base. That's one reason the IA threw its resources behind the two-week strike against the NBC series "The Biggest Loser," which allowed 50 crew members to count their hours toward their health insurance benefits. "I was trying to make the point that reality TV wasn't going to be ignored by us," Loeb said of the strike. "It bolstered the notion that there are things worth fighting for and that we would pull the trigger."

More daunting is a campaign the IA has launched to bring union contracts to visual-effects artists. Historically, makeup artists and other special-effects craftspeople were covered under union contracts. But most computer graphics artists today work as freelancers and don't have health insurance benefits and other union protections. "They are the only trade that works on a movie that is not represented," Loeb said. "That's astounding to me."

The union has dedicated a full-time organizer to meet with workers, but Loeb acknowledges the effort has met with some resistance on the part of employers, especially in California, where many companies are struggling to compete with low-cost labor and tax incentives offered by foreign rivals.

Dan Schmit, owner of L.A. effects house Engine Room, said he sympathized with the goal of unionizing workers at major studios but said it would hurt small boutique firms like his that rely mainly on independent contractors. "My hands would be tied in terms of my ability to negotiate for bids," said Schmit, who already offers health benefits to most of his 10 employees.

Still, Loeb also stresses common ground with employers in such areas as fighting piracy. The IA has a full-time lobbyist in Washington dedicated to supporting anti-piracy legislation, and Loeb has frequently spoken out against the damage piracy inflicts on residuals.

"The idea is to keep the industry healthy and keep our people working," Loeb said. "That's my job, that's the CEOs' job. It's not necessarily a contradictory relationship."



Monday, June 27, 2011

Tribune's Creditors Make Final Bankruptcy Pitch

Sam Zell, chairman and CEO, Tribune Company, speaks at the 2009 Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills,California in this April 27, 2009 file photograph.
Credit: Reuters/Fred Prouser/Files

By Tom Hals

WILMINGTON, Delaware
Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:12pm EDT

WILMINGTON, Delaware (Reuters) - Two years after real-estate mogul Sam Zell's brief control of Tribune Co ended in bankruptcy, warring creditors made their final pitches on Monday for the best way to get the owner of the Los Angeles Times out of Chapter 11.

Essentially, the bankruptcy judge is being asked to decide whether it would be better to settle disputes over who is at fault for the bankruptcy that wiped out billions of dollars of investments, or whether it would be better to sue to try to get those billions back.

The owner of the Chicago Tribune and numerous television stations has been stuck in bankruptcy since December 2008, one of the longest and most contentious cases of recent years, because it cannot reach a deal to end its Chapter 11.

The company collapsed less than a year after Zell took control through a leveraged buyout that left the company with $13 billion in debt, which he has since described as the "deal from hell."

The company, the lenders who funded Zell's deal and the committee of unsecured creditors used closing arguments to ask the judge to impose a settlement on noteholders that could cost those investors more than $1 billion in losses.

"A consensual resolution would be optimal," said James Conlan, who represents Tribune. Absent that, the company's proposal "is the next best choice to provide a path to exit bankruptcy, and a fair one."

Tribune and its allies propose providing at least $480 million for noteholders, who had their $2 billion investment wiped out by the Chapter 11. In return, noteholders would lose the right to sue the lenders and company.

The lenders, led by JPMorgan Chase & Co and hedge funds including Angelo Gordon & Co that now hold the buyout loans, would end up controlling Tribune. They estimate they would be getting a company worth 70 percent of the $8.7 billion they are owed.

Backers of Tribune's plan hammered away at the reasonableness of the proposed settlement, which they said was supported by a report by a court-appointed examiner who investigated legal claims stemming from the bankruptcy.

The examiner found the second part of Zell's two-step buyout was likely to have been a fraudulent transfer, meaning some of the lenders might not be able to collect what Tribune owed them because the loans led to the bankruptcy.

However, the examiner said the first part of the Zell deal was less vulnerable to legal attack.

After running through a list of defenses against the potential lawsuits noteholders might bring, Tribune lawyer James Bendernagel summed up the chances of the noteholders knocking out all the buyout loans.

"I submit those are pretty long odds," he said.

FRUITS OF LITIGATION

Noteholders led by the Aurelius Capital Management LP hedge fund have rejected the proposed settlement because it undervalues their legal claims. They want Delaware bankruptcy judge Kevin Carey to approve their plan to pursue lenders in the courts, which they said could lead to a full recovery for noteholders, with interest.

The noteholders estimate they could get up to $3 billion by litigating against the lenders who funded the leveraged buyout. Under that scenario, lenders would get less than 40 percent of what they are owed.

"The settlement is very very small in relation to the fruits of pursuing litigation," said David Zensky, who represents the noteholders.

Noteholders used their closing arguments to revisit what they called "fraudulently inflated" projections on which the buyout was based. The noteholder's attorney zeroed in on the rapid decline of Tribune's publishing business just as the Zell deal was coming together.

"What the evidence does show your honor," said noteholder attorney Abid Qureshi, "is that the LBO was doomed from the outset."

Carey has not said when he plans to rule.

The case is In re Tribune Co, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware, No. 08-13141.

(Reporting by Tom Hals, editing by Gerald E. McCormick)

Judge Rules that Reposting an Entire Article Without Permission Is ‘Fair Use’

By Ujala Sehgal
FishBowlNY

A federal judge ruled in favor of a defendant who reposted an entire article in a copyright case on Monday, Wired reports. The lawsuit was brought by Righthaven, a Las Vegas-based “copyright litigation factory,” according to Wired, that has sued more than 200 websites, bloggers, and commenters for copyright infringement.

This particular lawsuit targeted Wayne Hoehn, who posted an entire editorial from the Las Vegas Review-Journal and its headline, “Public Employee Pensions: We Can’t Afford Them” on a website medjacksports.com. Hoehn was not an employee of the site.

The “fair use” doctrine can be used as a copyright infringement defense in a situation where a defendant has used a copyrighted work without permission. In short, it provides a defense where the work has been used for limited, noncommecial purposes, including commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, and scholarship. Whether or not “fair use” applies is based on a balancing test. Let’s (roughly) go over the elements as applied to this case.

For one, the doctrine looks at the effect of the reproduction on the monetary value of the original piece. While Righthaven argued that Hoehn’s reposting had cost the article’s original website some eyeballs, the judge found that no evidence was presented that “the market for the work was harmed.”

Second, the doctrine considers whether the reproduction itself is intended to make money off of using the original work. In this case, the judge found that Hahn’s use was “noncommercial,” and just for the purposes of “online discussion.”

Third, the doctrine looks at the original work itself. Intriguingly, here the judge took into account the fact that only five of the editorial’s 19 paragraphs were “purely creative opinions” of the author. That was “not enough to consider the work a purely ‘creative work’ in the realm of fictional stories, song lyrics, or Barbie dolls,” the judge wrote.

Finally, the doctrine considers the sheer amount of the original work taken. In this case, clearly the entire article was reposted. But set against the other factors, it was not enough.

It’s worth pointing out that the judge also held that Righthaven did not have legal standing to bring the case at all, because Righthaven did not itself own the copyright of the Las Vegas Review-Journal article. But we think the “fair-use” analysis is the more interesting discussion in this case.

David Kravets commented in an article for Wired:

It’s not often that republishing an entire work without permission is deemed fair use. Fair use is an infringement defense when the defendant reproduced a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, commentary, teaching and research. The defense is analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

Monday’s ruling dismissed a lawsuit brought by Righthaven, a Las Vegas-based copyright litigation factory jointly owned with newspaper publisher Stephens Media. The venture’s litigation tactics and ethics are being questioned by several judges and attorneys, a factor that also weighed in on U.S. District Judge Philip Pro’s decision Monday.

Righthaven has sued more than 200 websites, bloggers and commenters for copyright infringement. More than 100 have settled out of court.

The lawsuit decided Monday targeted Wayne Hoehn, a Vietnam veteran who posted all 19 paragraphs of November editorial from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which is owned by Stephens Media. Hoehn posted the article, and its headline, “Public Employee Pensions: We Can’t Afford Them” on medjacksports.com to prompt discussion about the financial affairs of the nation’s states. Hoehn was a user of the site, not an employee.

Righthaven sought up to $150,000, the maximum in damages allowed under the Copyright Act. Righthaven argued that the November posting reduced the number of eyeballs that would have visited the Review-Journal site to read the editorial.

“Righthaven did not present any evidence that the market for the work was harmed by Hoehn’s noncommercial use for the 40 days it appeared on the website. Accordingly, there is no genuine issue of material fact that Hoehn’s use of the work was fair and summary judgment is appropriate,” Judge Pro ruled.

Marc Randazza, one of Hoehn’s attorneys, said he would petition the judge for legal fees and costs.

The judge also said he took into consideration that only five of the editorial’s paragraphs were “purely creative opinions” of the author.

“While the work does have some creative or editorial elements, these elements are not enough to consider the work a purely ‘creative work’ in the realm of fictional stories, song lyrics, or Barbie dolls,” he wrote. “Accordingly, the work is not within ‘the core of intended copyright protection.’”

Judge Pro, in his fair-use analysis, also found that the posting was for noncommercial purposes, and was part of an “online discussion.”

That said, Pro did not need to decide the fair-use question.

That’s because he also found that Righthaven did not have legal standing to bring the lawsuit, a hot-button topic in the Righthaven litigation.

Pro’s decision came a week after a different Las Vegas federal judge threatened to sanction Righthaven, calling its litigation efforts “disingenuous, if not outright deceitful” when it came to standing. Standing is a legal concept that has enabled Righthaven to bring lawsuits on behalf of the copyrights owned by Stephens Media.

That blistering decision by U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt, the chief judge in Nevada, places into doubt Righthaven’s year-old business model, which is also under a Colorado federal judge’s microscope.

Hunt gave Righthaven two weeks to explain why he should not sanction it for trying to “manufacture standing.” Judge Hunt suggested Righthaven never had standing in any of its cases because Righthaven and Stephens Media had agreed to share the proceeds of any damages awards or settlements, yet Stephens Media kept ownership of the copyright.

Righthaven must own the copyright to sue on its behalf, Hunt ruled in a decision echoed by Judge Pro on Monday.

What’s more, in each of the 200-plus cases Righthaven brought on behalf of Las Vegas Review-Journal articles, Righthaven never disclosed, as required, that Stephens Media had a “pecuniary interest” in the outcome, Hunt wrote.

Many bloggers who settled are mulling their legal options.