Phawker: Stephen A. Smith loses Inquirer column

Wow, I didn't know about the NABJ and Aldridge... Interesting stuff if true...

Most columnists are exempt from the union. Is that not the case with Smith?

That would actually make the Inquirer's moves a little easier to explain...

 

So were staff people with more seniority than Aldridge laid off, just because the NABJ got involved? Heck of a lot of good that union stuff did them then.

 

Even if you've embarrassed your employer by providing columns with inaccuracies such as the Pat Gillick thing?

 

I always thought most columnists were exempt from the union, too.

 

Brainstorm for union busting: Make them all columnists, then they won't be covered by union!

 

Stephen A. will stay ONLY if they increase his pay. He will not take a pay reduction. The NABJ got involved with Aldridge because it was apparant that many of those canned at the paper were minority hires.
There is an old saying, last hired, first fired with many African American journalists.

 

I worked at a paper where they promoted an ASE to an exempt position for the sole purpose of firing him...

Everybody saw it coming but him...

 

http://www.maynardije.org/columns/dickprince/070122_prince/

The Inquirer layoffs last year were complicated because management asked for and received the ability to "carve out" several dozen positions. So straight seniority was not used. Aldridge had little seniority and his position was not on the carve-out list, so he was laid off. He filed a grievance and, with the NABJ taking action, he was reinstated.
I'm not pointing any of this out to knock Aldridge. He's a talented guy and didn't do anything wrong here. Just explaining what happened at the time.
In Philadelphia, at least, all of the columnists are full-time Newspaper Guild members -- but that protection doesn't include the right to retain the column, just employment.

 

The truth of the matter is that the union sold out.

 

That's great info that offers a ton of insight why the Inquirer has taken this kind of action... For some reason I'm guessing that SAS has been threatened with this for awhile...

 

In what way? And based on what evidence?