Comments by JoeHill
Page 1 of 3 | Next
Posted on June 29 at 9:49 p.m.
RC, sounds great. Now all we need is a hundred mil or so and a face-saving way for McCaw to take a hike.
Posted on June 28 at 4:10 p.m.
Mvm, we need the community to show its visible support for the union and the reporters, those still working and those hoping to return. Demand that McCaw sign a fair contract with the Union, stop all the legal delays, go back to investing in the quality of the paper, and keep her views to the editorial pages. The News-Press made strides towards being a bigtime paper in a relatively small circulation community, with investigative journalists, in-depth stories, and a willingness to spare no one in its journalistic efforts. For some reason, McCaw decided that she wanted instead to curry favor with friends and advertisers, and bludgeon her enemies. She has the right to do that, but there are consequences, to ethics, to circulation, to respect and journalistic status. She doesn't have the right, however, to mistreat and threaten her employees because they sought improvement in their employment conditions, and protection from unfair discipline and post hoc rules. Much of this can be solved if she accepted the reality that the employees have rights and can demand she show genuine respect for them. The community can help with that also by letting her advertisers know they won't get your business if they keep supporting her paper while she is refusing to treat workers with decency and respect.
Posted on June 14 at 12:10 a.m.
No one likes to lose, bimboteskie, though the $750/hour (my guess) is some consolation. What is truly cool, however, is that Wendy will not only have to pay her own shysters, she'll probably have to pay for Paterno's counsel, who probably charge an equally steep fee.
Posted on May 20 at 9:26 a.m.
The "anti-SLAPP" law in California is tailor-made to prevent the Wendy McCaws of the world from being able to bog down those of lesser means in endless expensive litigation over the exercise of their First Amendment rights. As in the case of Sue Paterno, who we hope will some day receive a large check for her attorneys fees expended in defending herself against Wendy, so, too would anyone sued over Citizen McCaw be able to quickly move to toss out a defamation suit against them, and require Wendy to pay their attorneys fees for doing so.
That movie was indeed well-lawyered; even though she refused to participate and she was not positively portrayed, McCaw was largely indicted with her own words and those of her agents, there were disclaimers lurking everywhere, and much of her position appeared on screen notwithstanding her failure to cooperate. The movie is as bulletproof as it gets.
Posted on May 16 at 4:15 p.m.
East Beach, Mrs. McCaw pays Mr. Cappello quite handsomely for the purpose of misleading you.
Posted on May 1 at 11:06 p.m.
Wendy only had to sit down and bargain in good faith with the selected representatives of her employees, 'way back in July, 2006, and hammer out a deal, and all of the trauma could have been avoided, and she knew that. Wendy incited the rancor, she is responsible for the illegal firings and the upheaval that preceded and followed them. Whatphotosb, doesn't Wendy take responsibility for anything? She says it's her paper, she's said it's improving (not true, but whatevah), she's been belligerent, harsh, hypocritical and spends millions (probably literally) on her lawyers and now screams poverty? Get real.
Posted on March 8 at 10:54 a.m.
"Article III presidential appointee" is a reference to the provision of the US Constitution authorizing the president to appoint lifetime-tenured federal judges. This was apparently said in order to distinguish the lifetime federal district court appointee who sits fulltime on the federal bench who will hear the case Monday from the NLRB's Administrative Law Judge (Kocol) who made his decision in December.
On NLRB Files Motion Against News-Press to Enforce Employee Return
Posted on February 21 at 11:35 p.m.
Cappello asks the question, "Can you imagine an employer being required to give employees raises regardless of whether they deserve them?” That shows he's not attuned to what the Union's charge is about. The proper question to ask would have been, "Can you imagine an employer with an established practice of providing annual raises to most of its staff every year suddenly finding that absolutely no one deserved them, in the year that those employees just happen to vote for a union to represent them?" In other words, no one is saying that the employer cannot exercise its discretion in these circumstances, but the Union is saying that when the employer goes negative in an unprecedented fashion in the very year that its employees vote in a union, it is suspicious to put it mildly, and Cappello would be suspicious himself if he were not being paid by McCaw to defend her. Topping it off, the SBNP falsely claimed that there were prior years when no raises were given, and it couldn't come up with a valid explanation -- as in "No one deserved raises in 2006 because. . . . .????" So, when you change practices, and the only fact that's changed is the union has arrived, and you don't explain yourself when given an opportunity, your position starts to smell funky.
On Teamsters, News-Press Trade Unfair Labor Practice Charges
Posted on December 31 at 10:06 p.m.
Let us not forget that for the second time in two cases, Scott Steepleton and Travis Armstrong have been found to be lying liars. Two judges, two SBNP sets of lawyers, two cases, same result. According to some of Cappello's ham-handed horse puckey at the hearing, if a SBNP employee is found to have perjured himself, that employee stands to be disciplined. Now that Trav and Scott have been found to be two-time fabricating prevaricating embellishing falsifying deceiving mendacious contriving smirky exaggerating too-eager-to-please-Wendy dissemblers, surely otter-loving employee-hating McCaw will hang them both from the nearest yardarm! And put the story on the front page!!!!
Page 1 of 3 | Next
Previous Month
Posted on June 29 at 10 p.m.
Mr. Roberts, reapportionment is a high-minded idea whose time has not come. No doubt competitive races would heighten participation, but so would taking money out of contention, and so would an end to disenfranchisement -- through intimidation, disqualification of ex-felons, exclusive ID requirements, and unreliable voting mechanisms brought to us by the likes of Diebold. Not to mention more inspiring politicians. One of the problems with reapportionment is that it's a game of chicken: why should a Republican-gerrymandered state like Texas be allowed to continue its Delayist ways while California becomes "fair"? Reapportionment won't reap true equity until all states are prepared to take the plunge. In the meantime, we should move full speed ahead to make sure all votes are counted as cast, get the influence of money and the dominance of the two parties minimized, and while we dream of a better political future, I will light a pipe with smoking material of unknown origin.
On Anatomy of a Rumor (Capitol Letters)