Page 2 of 10
Posted on December 21 at 12:59 p.m.
@JohnLocke It is NOT illegal for employees to advocate boycott of their employer; it is in fact activity protected by federal labor law. Indeed, two of the three members of the same cynical panel that decided the News-Press case this week said as much in a case they participated in 20 years ago. The fact that they didn't even refer to their own precedent that was squarely against the result they wanted to reach -- which was cited to them by the parties and would not have escaped their notice -- shows the political character of this decision.
Moreover, the panel deliberately and consciously distorted (and omitted certain of) the facts, equally to suit their preordained purpose.
On Mark One for McCaw
Posted on December 19 at 10:21 p.m.
The point of the NLRB cases is not about the content of the paper, but about a court loking for a reason to help out an outlaw employer, even when its own lawyers were not up to the task of defending it. The DC Circuit reached beyond the comprehensive evidentiary record and the confines of precedent from SCOTUS and its own annals to help out a miscreant employer, in unprecedented fashion. The only thing missing from McCaw's First Amendment defense was evidence: the NLRB found, relying on evidence, that the reasons for which the eight reporters were discharged were either pretexts (i.e., lies to cover up anti-union motivation) or retaliation NOT for alleged attacks on managerial prerogative, but for protected activity. McCaw's half dozen lawyers mustered not a shred of evidence to contradict that conclusion, and Steepleton admitted that all of the reasons for firing the eight were contained in the letters he wrote and gave to them. None of those letters said word one about McCaw's purported concern about threats to her editorial prerogatives. So the First Amendment was a "post hoc" defense cooked up by lawyers who didn't bother to prove it.
People sucking up to Wendy claim the NLRB is biased; all of the judges favoring Wendy thus far have had an "R" next to their names, and one Republican NLRB member voted in favor of the employees and union. Republicans are supposed to believe in the force of precedent, but these three pretended the Supreme Court's ruling saying newspapers had to obey labor law, and the DC Circuit's precedent saying employee boycotts are protected, never happened. These judges' hostility to unions, collective bargaining and the NLRB, and willingness to bend over backwards to help employers and discard the deference they're supposed to show to NLRB rulings, have been demonstrated time and again. This decision is a travesty of justice, nothing less.
Posted on June 8 at 10:46 p.m.
SezMe, I don't share your understandable pessimism. Wendy's just about at the end of the road with the Roberts case, and she's not going to be able to escape NLRB enforcement for that much longer. I for one, plan to be alive and kicking when the reporters are asked to return, and management -- maybe even new management -- is compelled to mend its law-defying ways.
On Dog in the Manger or Mangy Dog?
Posted on June 7 at 9:36 p.m.
The News-Press was definitely hurt by its own misdeeds over the last six years. Local newspapers should have done better, not worse, than urban papers have done, since they provide a commodity -- local news -- that isn't readily available, and it had been dominant until management decided to attack its own newsroom, and then lie about what they'd done under oath to the NLRB.
As for the reporters who were illegally fired, threatened, and surveilled, and who have not been able to get any collective bargaining protection because of management's blatant violations of federal labor law, Wendy's comeuppance is still in the offing as several cases (from which Cappello has been relieved) wind their way through the system.
Posted on June 2 at 5:40 p.m.
Nick, any chance of posting the complaint?
It seems likely that: 1) Cappello tried to resolve the undoubtedly long-standing mounting arrears and was not successful; 2) McCaw will hire another high-priced firm to defend her delinquency, so 3) will she charge Cappello with malpractice, since Cappello hasn't been very successful in many of his various defenses (and no doubt has actually collected millions from her in the course of his representation), and she is allergic to accepting any responsibility whatsoever for all that has befallen her as a result of what she's done?
On Barry Cappello Sues Wendy McCaw
Posted on February 24 at 1:19 p.m.
Well said, Pagurus! McCaw revels in her ignorance and arrogance, flaunting her power and defying (by delaying) justice. But as MLK said, the arc of history bends toward justice, and here's a small measure of it.
On Editor Wins, McCaw Loses
Posted on February 12 at 10:29 p.m.
Greg, sadly, Wendy isn't in the humanity business. As long as she can pay her lawyers to keep justice at bay and hope to thwart and frustrate her former and current staff -- even at the cost of her and their ethics -- she will. At least so far. Ultimately, that attrition strategy will fail, and time is in the final analysis not on her side. But her extraordinary resources free her to be less fair, rational or just for far longer than most.
On Court Hears Jerry Roberts Case
Posted on February 10 at 9:45 p.m.
$900,000.00 is the correct number.
Posted on February 10 at 6:15 a.m.
Bimbo, the controversy surrounding the authority of the current NLRB members appointed at recess by the president last month does not affect the validity of the Board's decision issued last August, which is now on appeal at the DC Circuit. The delay continues, but there is hope for positive results by the end of the year. This delay -- exacerbated by the dysfunction in Washington -- is one of the major weaknesses in labor law, fully exploited by the ethically-challenged labor lawyers who work for Wendy.
Posted on July 31 at 4:20 p.m.
This rally wasn't about calling McCaw names. It was a reminder to all that justice hasn't been served, and in effect has been denied to date, yet the people most involved remain hopeful that that will change. There is ongoing injury to the employees --those who are still working there but are denied the voice in their workplace they voted for through pervasive McCaw unfair labor practices, and those who were fired illegally -- and to the community and general public as well, which has a stake in the enforcement of federal labor law. McCaw's editorial stances are beside the point, other than the fact that her anti-union rants on her editorial page also infect her internal labor relations policy and practice. But she, no less than any employer who doesn't run a newspaper, has to obey the law of the land. When she acts on that obligation, this dispute will be over. But not until then.
On Rally Marks Year Five of <em>News-Press</em> Mess