A home for those who love almost everything about The Ticket (1310 AM, 96.7 FM, Dallas-Fort Worth), and who would like to discuss -- respectfully and fondly -- their thoughts on how (and whether) to eliminate the "almost."
Friday, August 18, 2023
Someone Should Tell Conrad How to Pronounce "Respite"
This blog has been smart and unbiased enough to realize that Jake and Dan weren’t getting mistreated and working in horrific conditions like most dumbzone fans think. Surly probably has more allies on Reddit.
About the second producer job that’s supposedly open according to cooby. Is it Blake? Does he have familial ties to cumulus? Hard to pin down. Can’t imagine Blake bailing for a podcast that has an uncertain future. Can imagine Blake leaving for producer gig with Dan and Jake, idk if his cumulus ties would stop him from going to iHeart.
CJK5H: Could it be he's headed for another job inside the Cumulus Dallas cluster? Like Gribble going to ESPN? Where is Gribble now?
Why isn't there more interplay between the Dallas cluster stations? Other than Hawkeye pranking Homer Call of the Week there really hasn't been any.
Also, while all of this was going on Rick Roberts left afternoons at WBAP. No explanation, just gone. They did the same thing when Brian Estridge left the morning show. Mark Davis was the beginning of all of this.
My question about the NLRB stuff- are 2 shows, 4 people, enough to 'collectively bargain' with? In fact, did Bob and Corby agree to be represented in collective bargaining, or was this TDZ saying "Hey we think we should talk to Dan and Jeff, see if they'd be interested in us aligning our contracts', and THL showing up for that meeting blind to the real purpose.
Because from the Cumulus side, I can see what they wouldn't. Why set half your airstaff up where they could all leave at the same time? But there has to be a huge difference legally between "hey can we talk about this" and "Hey, we're now invoking sec 7 or 8 of the NLRB regs and this is now officially collective bargaining'.
And Did Dan Bennett forbid them from talking contracts and compensation, or did he say he doesn't like it? If forbidding it is illegal, fine. But disapproval? I can't tell you how many bosses over the years have said they don't post salaries and don't encourage open discussion because 2 people may have the same job titles and job duties but be TOTALLY DIFFERENT workers. Because they're the butt of some jokes, take ticket remote techs. Per on-air comments, some get there early, have everything set up, tested and sounding good well in advance, and some, well, they suck. I'm paying the good remote tech (Blake Jones, Blake Jones) more money then the other guy. Do I want the other guy to know that? No, as a boss, I'm asking Blake not to discuss his raise. I'm not forbidding it, I'm requesting it. Still illegal under the NLRB?
I've said for a while that I thought TDZ's filing was 'too cute". Sounds like Plainsman, after seeing Cumulus's response maybe feels the same way. And I'll leave you with an example of that. They keep referring to TDZ as a subscription only podcast. Not in competition with free radio because you have to pay for it. But I don't pay for it and get one free episode a week. So 25% of their output violates Jake's contract. Is it OK because it's only 25%? Would it be ok at 33% or 42%? Where do they draw the line at acceptable contract violation? C
Gopher- Gribble is producing for Hawkeye and MichRod KSCS mornings. I've got some friends that work for Cumulus. They're take on Brian Estridge- he's still doing TCU stuff, so left to focus on that- and that morning show had Hal Jay Steve Lamb Brian Estridge Stubie Doak Brad Barton News girl and Traffic guy Plus a board op. 5 on air regulars plus supporting cast for at least 8. The Musers have 3 plus a supporting cast. More doesn't necessarily equal better.
Yes, management requesting that an employee not discuss wages, not talk about a raise they just got, or stating a general disapproval on wage discussion, all of that are still violations of the NLRB. For the sake of the employee, hopefully management is dumb enough to put this stuff in writing (policy, an email, text, etc) so it’s cut and dry.
Re: Blake Jones cumulus ties, if memory serves, one of his best friends is the son of a local cumulus exec. Donna something?
Jake and Dan’s side said they weren’t supposed to talk about wages right? Wonder what cumulus’s response to that is. Was it verbally said? I doubt It’s in writing, or would think cumulus isn’t that dumb lol. Or was it just a workplace where it was discouraged in a de facto way?
In the previous thread, Familylawguy lays out the case for hooking this controversy to the National Labor Relations Act, wherein Dan and Jake are tying their negotiations to a "request to collectively bargain" in which Bob and Corby participated. In the course of that meeting, they allege, Dan Bennett told them they were forbidden from discussing salaries with other employees.
Let's put aside the absurdity of Dan as a champion of lesser tiers, whom he frequently berated on the air. BaD radio was legendarily hard on its revolving door of helpers and lunch-fetchers.
It is true that it is illegal to forbid, and probably also to strongly suggest, that employees not discuss salaries. If Dan Bennett did that, Cumulus has got a problem unrelated to the current controversy.
A couple of observations about the rest of it:
(1) It will be interesting to see if Cumulus has any witnesses lined up for Monday to refute this story. That would be Bennett and/or Corby and/or Sturm. (If, in fact, it's refutable.)
(2) The problem I have with their legal theory is that the evidence is (or is alleged to be) that SD+J were planning to split all along -- they were not driven out by Cumulus failing to collectively bargain. (Already starting to record podcasts, etc.)
That is to say: The existence of the various restrictive covenants did not inhibit anyone's right to collectively bargain. If that meeting took place as alleged, it is a separate violation not tied to their decision to leave. The restrictive covenants cannot reasonably regarded as a tool to inhibit collective bargaining even if their effect was to make departure unattractive -- if anything, if that was the intended effect of the restrictive covenants, and it succeeded, it would do nothing but strengthen employees' position by having their champs Dan and Jake continue on the payroll. Of course, they didn't continue on the payroll -- they quit and immediately started doing the thing they had individually bargained for but on which they had been turned down -- in violation of their restrictive covenants.
So if I were Cumulus worried about this meeting, I would argue that the non-compete/disparagement/solicitation issue arises in a context having little or nothing to do with this claimed request to collectively bargain. It arises solely because they had reached an impasse in their individual negotiations and their desire to split, and not conceivably because they were hounded out of Cumulus for being the Jimmy Hoffas of The Ticket.
We mouthpieces would say: There's no "nexus" between the NLRA violations alleged and the facts surrounding their violations of the noncompete.
So I continue to think the lads' legal argument here is weak, even if the facts they allege are true.
Matt Bruenig laid out their actual legal arguments very plainly so I’m not sure why you’re relying on “Familylawguy”’s suggestions rather than one of their own lawyers.
@KTDK there haven’t been any labor lawyers here but it hasn’t stopped anyone yet. While Breunig feels the case is solid, I would expect someone consulting them to be confident in their case.
This is probably nuts to think much less opine: Is there a chance that a settlement is reached and that DnJ return to TT? Gordo addressed some of this Thursday on his Twitch stream. He was adamant that everyone (including Cat and Bennett) is on good terms. If that's the case, and a settlement is reached, might that settlement entail a possible way back? Meaning, DnJ get salaries equal to the am/pm shows and the support staff across the board gets a bump in pay? Move Mino and Sean to Donnie's slot and 86 MM.
@Bravo Eugenia I like your thinking but at this point I think that ship is out in open sea. Plus, whoever it was that brought McClearin into the mix didn't move him from a successful show in Birmingham to Dallas only to kick him to the curb. If he gets the boot it will be because of something he says or does on or off air.
Shocked, I tells ya! Shocked! Not really. That was pretty much right on cue, right on schedule. Once Cumulus and DnJ settle sometime this week or next and the nc expires, the three will reunite for their Freak pm drive show--replete with the addition of TC.
Wow. So now Grubes too is a semantics game playing douche. Never thought I'd see the day. Then again, toxicity can be contagious. And coming from a genuine 1%er.
@ Wut, that’s my guess too. DJ to 10-1 producer, Jay King to morning tickers. Hardline producer? The chalk would be Saad but I wonder if he had too much in the way of travel obligations with Stars + Cowboys on his Athletic beat. Deddy? THL does like the producer chair to be a contributing voice but that dude overcontributes at times. Ryan Medellin?
Blake was a good choice for BaD producer by Jeff Catlin. I have to agree with those on this site who have noticed some hostility on his part towards Matt M, and he popped on so much that it was hard to see Donovan and MM getting a rhythm going. Looks like that's a moot point now.
I am trying to remember if someone else on this site has expressed this speculation. If so, I credit him or her, but this thought popped into my head a day or so ago after reading some of the latest filings in the lawsuit:
Dan Bennett and Cumulus were set up.
Speculative scenario: Dan and Jake were getting advised by lawyers who apparently have some experience in labor law, and/or with the National Labor Relations Board.
They knew the law and facts were against them on the restrictive covenants.
So they advised Dan and Jake to contrive some way of tying their negotiations, which had nothing to do with collective bargaining, to less-compensated employees. Bob and Corby got roped in to what sounded like a feelgood plan to do something for staff, which sorta looked like an effort to bargain collectively, although none of these guys represented any lower-level employees, Bob and Corby had no contract issues pending, and no lower-level employee was even involved. But with Bob and Corby involved, it made it look less like an individual dispute with Dan and Jake, and more like some kind of semi-organizational employee-wide effort to improve working conditions -- something they could claim invoked the reach of the National Labor Relations Act. They hit pay dirt when Bennett, who obviously had never dealt with unions or the niceties of labor law and was not being advised at the time, said something about not discussing salaries.
I've stated my reasons for thinking there is insufficient nexus between whatever went down at that meeting and the claim against the lads, but they certainly gave it a try with that meeting. I'm wondering if Bob and Corby are feeling used, their good intentions towards staff having been appropriated by Dan and Jake for their own benefit, to contrive a slender-thread labor law defense -- and no additional benefit to staff.
In other words: In this lawyer-stage-managed scenario, Cumulus, Bennett, and to some extent Bob and Corby -- were entrapped.
This is pure speculation on my part -- but I've always thought there is something fishy about that altruistic meeting.
I still think the court will defer a ruling tomorrow. But if she doesn't, then the ruling will be against Cumulus on this preliminary motion -- it will just be easier for her than to craft some kind of injunctive relief, for which Cumulus hasn't given her much help in its filings, and easier to rule that in light of the sworn testimony of Dan and Jake, Cumulus will not have met its burden (unless it also presents sworn testimony at the hearing in refutation).
A Cumulus loss, however, will not necessarily be the end of the case. Interesting times for The Little One.
I really don’t think D&J would “use” Bob in any way with Bob unaware of said “using”. All three have repeatedly said they have a brotherly relationship. And call me naive but I believe it.
I ain't denyin' it. And I won't defend that scenario to the death.
Two circumstances noodged me on this:
(1) It is clearer now than it was before that SD+J were getting some kind of semi-sophisticated labor-law advice early on (and local Bennett/Catlin and Cumulus generally were not, and why would they?).
(2) Someone other than Jake and Dan had to be involved for this to look like a generalized dispute regarding working conditions (invoking NLRA) instead of a one-on-one, garden-variety disagreement with a couple of negotiating/departing employees. Bob and Corby didn't intend to be Dan and Jake's NRLA fishhooks; I'm sure their motives were the best. But in light of the use the lads are making of that meeting, and their participation in it -- kinda looks like they were being used.
And I'll throw in:
(3) Circumstantial evidence suggesting that they were going to split well before they did.
Circumstantial evidence, which is all I'm considering throughout, isn't top-shelf evidence, but it's not nothing.
But yes, KTDK Sanger, there's some theater of the mind on my part.
@Wut: Maybe. But doubt Bob and Corby will enjoy receiving subpoenas if this thing drags on. They're in a bad spot, and Dan and Jake put them there. They either testify in a way that favors Dan and Jake, infuriating their employer, or they testify in a way that favors Cumulus, rupturing these warm relationships we're hearing about. (And I'm certain that both Bob and Corby will testify truthfully.) Dan and Jake are the ones who made them witnesses, and it doesn't look inadvertent or accidental to me. In light of the lads' filings, it looks to me like a strategem put in place by the lads' lawyers.
I agree with Wut as regards the purposely using of Bob and Corby. As to the rest of it, it's not out of the realm of possibility, including inadvertantly/unwittingly "using" Bob and Corby.
The strategy I'm guessing at, if it was their attorneys' strategy or their own, was extremely clever and (assuming no false statements, fraud, etc.) entirely legal. It's not evil to have a meeting to discuss better terms and conditions for employees.
I'm only saying that they needed something other than their dispute over podcasts/noncompetes as a hook to be able to make their labor law argument, however tenuous. This meeting was it; and it needed to look like something other than a Cumulus versus Dan+Jake negotiation -- it needed more bodies. Bob and Jake were those bodies, and I'm sure they attended that meeting willingly and with the best of motives.
And, quite possibly, with Dan and Jake being pure of heart as well, if Cumulus would have said yes to everything that was being proposed. Did the lads really think that was likely?
And now, Bob and Corby read that they're the stars of the lads' sworn declarations, and will almost certainly become deposition and/or live witnesses, most likely against their employer.
I said this now well over a month ago and I will say it again:
There are heroes here who are not. They will be exposed. Will that change anyone's preconceived perceptions? I highly doubt it. But exposed, they will be.
On a related note, here is a Tweet (or is it now an X?) from one Michael Gruber from 8/18/23. The timing and tone of this Tweet/X is somewhat suspicious. Especially when taking into consideration the DnJ situation and now Blake's departure. What's also, ahem, rich, here is that of all people, a guy who was brought up/still lives in luxury and for whom careers/jobs are purely a matter of passion and not necessity is taking an obvious shot at his now long ago (nearly a decade ago if not more) former employer who by all accounts treated him rather nicely (and did his father a favor by hiring him in the first place). Here's what Mr. Gruber had to say:
"Just got a paycheck with some new endorsements and it's quite a nice change of pace. It's apparently not difficult to find ways to compensate employees who provide a value beyond their "role." This tweet is irrelevant to anything happening anywhere, everywhere. I just like my gig." (1:07 a.m. 8/18/23)
A bit disappointing to read that. I always thought Grubes to better than that. Smarter, too. Because if DnJnB do magically find themselves at TF in a few months, well, then you know the fix was in from the jump. Moreover, it's cutesy Tweets and statements like this that could cause more legal woes down the road. 1:07 a.m.. Hope that buzz was a cool one, Grubes.
Is Dan and Jake pulling Bob and Corby into the meeting with management part of the record somewhere or is that an assumption? My understanding of how things happened is Corby was leading the charge to convince both sides to work it out. It would seem to me in this scenario he and Bob would've been the ones pushing for the meeting, not Dan and Jake pulling them in.
We’re talking about two different meetings. You’re thinking about the fact that Corby said he got involved in trying to negotiate to get DnJ back, after things started going south. But the formal meeting Pman and others have been talking about is referenced in the legal documents from DnJ, saying that they and Corby and Bob met with Cat and Dan Bennet(t) and discussed aligning their contracts so they all ended at the same time, for more bargaining power. They report being told they could not discuss salaries or contracts with each other, which is one piece of their complaint against Cumulus
Bravo Eugenia: No, there is no scenario worth betting on where D&J return to the Ticket. I suppose in some universe, they could come back, but in the real world that never happens. At least in the short term.
Pman. If you are low on inventory the sfw version of Scarlett Mae is as good as it gets.
ReplyDeleteGee, haven't seen a lot of comments from Surly since Cumulus's legal team apparently got its s together.
ReplyDeleteThis blog has been smart and unbiased enough to realize that Jake and Dan weren’t getting mistreated and working in horrific conditions like most dumbzone fans think. Surly probably has more allies on Reddit.
ReplyDeleteAbout the second producer job that’s supposedly open according to cooby. Is it Blake? Does he have familial ties to cumulus? Hard to pin down. Can’t imagine Blake bailing for a podcast that has an uncertain future. Can imagine Blake leaving for producer gig with Dan and Jake, idk if his cumulus ties would stop him from going to iHeart.
CJK5H: Could it be he's headed for another job inside the Cumulus Dallas cluster? Like Gribble going to ESPN? Where is Gribble now?
ReplyDeleteWhy isn't there more interplay between the Dallas cluster stations? Other than Hawkeye pranking Homer Call of the Week there really hasn't been any.
Also, while all of this was going on Rick Roberts left afternoons at WBAP. No explanation, just gone. They did the same thing when Brian Estridge left the morning show. Mark Davis was the beginning of all of this.
My question about the NLRB stuff- are 2 shows, 4 people, enough to 'collectively bargain' with? In fact, did Bob and Corby agree to be represented in collective bargaining, or was this TDZ saying "Hey we think we should talk to Dan and Jeff, see if they'd be interested in us aligning our contracts', and THL showing up for that meeting blind to the real purpose.
ReplyDeleteBecause from the Cumulus side, I can see what they wouldn't. Why set half your airstaff up where they could all leave at the same time? But there has to be a huge difference legally between "hey can we talk about this" and "Hey, we're now invoking sec 7 or 8 of the NLRB regs and this is now officially collective bargaining'.
And Did Dan Bennett forbid them from talking contracts and compensation, or did he say he doesn't like it? If forbidding it is illegal, fine. But disapproval? I can't tell you how many bosses over the years have said they don't post salaries and don't encourage open discussion because 2 people may have the same job titles and job duties but be TOTALLY DIFFERENT workers. Because they're the butt of some jokes, take ticket remote techs. Per on-air comments, some get there early, have everything set up, tested and sounding good well in advance, and some, well, they suck. I'm paying the good remote tech (Blake Jones, Blake Jones) more money then the other guy. Do I want the other guy to know that? No, as a boss, I'm asking Blake not to discuss his raise. I'm not forbidding it, I'm requesting it. Still illegal under the NLRB?
I've said for a while that I thought TDZ's filing was 'too cute". Sounds like Plainsman, after seeing Cumulus's response maybe feels the same way. And I'll leave you with an example of that. They keep referring to TDZ as a subscription only podcast. Not in competition with free radio because you have to pay for it. But I don't pay for it and get one free episode a week. So 25% of their output violates Jake's contract. Is it OK because it's only 25%? Would it be ok at 33% or 42%? Where do they draw the line at acceptable contract violation?
C
Gopher- Gribble is producing for Hawkeye and MichRod KSCS mornings. I've got some friends that work for Cumulus. They're take on Brian Estridge- he's still doing TCU stuff, so left to focus on that- and that morning show had
ReplyDeleteHal Jay
Steve Lamb
Brian Estridge
Stubie Doak
Brad Barton
News girl and
Traffic guy
Plus a board op.
5 on air regulars plus supporting cast for at least 8. The Musers have 3 plus a supporting cast. More doesn't necessarily equal better.
Yes, management requesting that an employee not discuss wages, not talk about a raise they just got, or stating a general disapproval on wage discussion, all of that are still violations of the NLRB. For the sake of the employee, hopefully management is dumb enough to put this stuff in writing (policy, an email, text, etc) so it’s cut and dry.
ReplyDeleteRe: Blake Jones cumulus ties, if memory serves, one of his best friends is the son of a local cumulus exec. Donna something?
Jake and Dan’s side said they weren’t supposed to talk about wages right? Wonder what cumulus’s response to that is. Was it verbally said? I doubt It’s in writing, or would think cumulus isn’t that dumb lol. Or was it just a workplace where it was discouraged in a de facto way?
ReplyDeleteIn the previous thread, Familylawguy lays out the case for hooking this controversy to the National Labor Relations Act, wherein Dan and Jake are tying their negotiations to a "request to collectively bargain" in which Bob and Corby participated. In the course of that meeting, they allege, Dan Bennett told them they were forbidden from discussing salaries with other employees.
ReplyDeleteLet's put aside the absurdity of Dan as a champion of lesser tiers, whom he frequently berated on the air. BaD radio was legendarily hard on its revolving door of helpers and lunch-fetchers.
It is true that it is illegal to forbid, and probably also to strongly suggest, that employees not discuss salaries. If Dan Bennett did that, Cumulus has got a problem unrelated to the current controversy.
A couple of observations about the rest of it:
(1) It will be interesting to see if Cumulus has any witnesses lined up for Monday to refute this story. That would be Bennett and/or Corby and/or Sturm. (If, in fact, it's refutable.)
(2) The problem I have with their legal theory is that the evidence is (or is alleged to be) that SD+J were planning to split all along -- they were not driven out by Cumulus failing to collectively bargain. (Already starting to record podcasts, etc.)
That is to say: The existence of the various restrictive covenants did not inhibit anyone's right to collectively bargain. If that meeting took place as alleged, it is a separate violation not tied to their decision to leave. The restrictive covenants cannot reasonably regarded as a tool to inhibit collective bargaining even if their effect was to make departure unattractive -- if anything, if that was the intended effect of the restrictive covenants, and it succeeded, it would do nothing but strengthen employees' position by having their champs Dan and Jake continue on the payroll. Of course, they didn't continue on the payroll -- they quit and immediately started doing the thing they had individually bargained for but on which they had been turned down -- in violation of their restrictive covenants.
So if I were Cumulus worried about this meeting, I would argue that the non-compete/disparagement/solicitation issue arises in a context having little or nothing to do with this claimed request to collectively bargain. It arises solely because they had reached an impasse in their individual negotiations and their desire to split, and not conceivably because they were hounded out of Cumulus for being the Jimmy Hoffas of The Ticket.
We mouthpieces would say: There's no "nexus" between the NLRA violations alleged and the facts surrounding their violations of the noncompete.
So I continue to think the lads' legal argument here is weak, even if the facts they allege are true.
Weak, but not crazy.
Matt Bruenig laid out their actual legal arguments very plainly so I’m not sure why you’re relying on “Familylawguy”’s suggestions rather than one of their own lawyers.
ReplyDelete@KTDK there haven’t been any labor lawyers here but it hasn’t stopped anyone yet.
DeleteWhile Breunig feels the case is solid, I would expect someone consulting them to be confident in their case.
@KTDK Sanger:
ReplyDeleteGood question.
Because life is short.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteOh man, 5:03, you - - - - - - -
ReplyDeleteNaw, bruh. No one's taking the cheese.
Later, Turbo.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis is probably nuts to think much less opine: Is there a chance that a settlement is reached and that DnJ return to TT? Gordo addressed some of this Thursday on his Twitch stream. He was adamant that everyone (including Cat and Bennett) is on good terms. If that's the case, and a settlement is reached, might that settlement entail a possible way back? Meaning, DnJ get salaries equal to the am/pm shows and the support staff across the board gets a bump in pay? Move Mino and Sean to Donnie's slot and 86 MM.
ReplyDelete@Bravo Eugenia
ReplyDeleteI like your thinking but at this point I think that ship is out in open sea. Plus, whoever it was that brought McClearin into the mix didn't move him from a successful show in Birmingham to Dallas only to kick him to the curb. If he gets the boot it will be because of something he says or does on or off air.
per the new WiP - Blakes last day at The Ticket was Friday.
ReplyDeleteFor real? Blake is seriously gone?
DeleteShocked, I tells ya! Shocked! Not really. That was pretty much right on cue, right on schedule. Once Cumulus and DnJ settle sometime this week or next and the nc expires, the three will reunite for their Freak pm drive show--replete with the addition of TC.
ReplyDeleteWow. So now Grubes too is a semantics game playing douche. Never thought I'd see the day. Then again, toxicity can be contagious. And coming from a genuine 1%er.
ReplyDeleteGuessing DJ takes Blake’s place for now. And probably permanently after the “interview” process is over.
ReplyDelete@ Wut, that’s my guess too. DJ to 10-1 producer, Jay King to morning tickers. Hardline producer? The chalk would be Saad but I wonder if he had too much in the way of travel obligations with Stars + Cowboys on his Athletic beat. Deddy? THL does like the producer chair to be a contributing voice but that dude overcontributes at times. Ryan Medellin?
ReplyDeleteWIP audio
ReplyDeletehttps://www.reddit.com/r/theticket/comments/15we9y9/stay_hard_blake_jones/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
Blake was a good choice for BaD producer by Jeff Catlin. I have to agree with those on this site who have noticed some hostility on his part towards Matt M, and he popped on so much that it was hard to see Donovan and MM getting a rhythm going. Looks like that's a moot point now.
ReplyDeleteMy Ticket Confession wishes him the best.
I am trying to remember if someone else on this site has expressed this speculation. If so, I credit him or her, but this thought popped into my head a day or so ago after reading some of the latest filings in the lawsuit:
ReplyDeleteDan Bennett and Cumulus were set up.
Speculative scenario: Dan and Jake were getting advised by lawyers who apparently have some experience in labor law, and/or with the National Labor Relations Board.
They knew the law and facts were against them on the restrictive covenants.
So they advised Dan and Jake to contrive some way of tying their negotiations, which had nothing to do with collective bargaining, to less-compensated employees. Bob and Corby got roped in to what sounded like a feelgood plan to do something for staff, which sorta looked like an effort to bargain collectively, although none of these guys represented any lower-level employees, Bob and Corby had no contract issues pending, and no lower-level employee was even involved. But with Bob and Corby involved, it made it look less like an individual dispute with Dan and Jake, and more like some kind of semi-organizational employee-wide effort to improve working conditions -- something they could claim invoked the reach of the National Labor Relations Act. They hit pay dirt when Bennett, who obviously had never dealt with unions or the niceties of labor law and was not being advised at the time, said something about not discussing salaries.
I've stated my reasons for thinking there is insufficient nexus between whatever went down at that meeting and the claim against the lads, but they certainly gave it a try with that meeting. I'm wondering if Bob and Corby are feeling used, their good intentions towards staff having been appropriated by Dan and Jake for their own benefit, to contrive a slender-thread labor law defense -- and no additional benefit to staff.
In other words: In this lawyer-stage-managed scenario, Cumulus, Bennett, and to some extent Bob and Corby -- were entrapped.
This is pure speculation on my part -- but I've always thought there is something fishy about that altruistic meeting.
I still think the court will defer a ruling tomorrow. But if she doesn't, then the ruling will be against Cumulus on this preliminary motion -- it will just be easier for her than to craft some kind of injunctive relief, for which Cumulus hasn't given her much help in its filings, and easier to rule that in light of the sworn testimony of Dan and Jake, Cumulus will not have met its burden (unless it also presents sworn testimony at the hearing in refutation).
A Cumulus loss, however, will not necessarily be the end of the case. Interesting times for The Little One.
I think the fiction writer in you is showing.
ReplyDeleteI really don’t think D&J would “use” Bob in any way with Bob unaware of said “using”. All three have repeatedly said they have a brotherly relationship. And call me naive but I believe it.
ReplyDelete@KTDK Sanger:
ReplyDeleteI ain't denyin' it. And I won't defend that scenario to the death.
Two circumstances noodged me on this:
(1) It is clearer now than it was before that SD+J were getting some kind of semi-sophisticated labor-law advice early on (and local Bennett/Catlin and Cumulus generally were not, and why would they?).
(2) Someone other than Jake and Dan had to be involved for this to look like a generalized dispute regarding working conditions (invoking NLRA) instead of a one-on-one, garden-variety disagreement with a couple of negotiating/departing employees. Bob and Corby didn't intend to be Dan and Jake's NRLA fishhooks; I'm sure their motives were the best. But in light of the use the lads are making of that meeting, and their participation in it -- kinda looks like they were being used.
And I'll throw in:
(3) Circumstantial evidence suggesting that they were going to split well before they did.
Circumstantial evidence, which is all I'm considering throughout, isn't top-shelf evidence, but it's not nothing.
But yes, KTDK Sanger, there's some theater of the mind on my part.
@Wut: Maybe. But doubt Bob and Corby will enjoy receiving subpoenas if this thing drags on. They're in a bad spot, and Dan and Jake put them there. They either testify in a way that favors Dan and Jake, infuriating their employer, or they testify in a way that favors Cumulus, rupturing these warm relationships we're hearing about. (And I'm certain that both Bob and Corby will testify truthfully.) Dan and Jake are the ones who made them witnesses, and it doesn't look inadvertent or accidental to me. In light of the lads' filings, it looks to me like a strategem put in place by the lads' lawyers.
I agree with Wut as regards the purposely using of Bob and Corby. As to the rest of it, it's not out of the realm of possibility, including inadvertantly/unwittingly "using" Bob and Corby.
ReplyDeleteAnd let me be clear about something else:
ReplyDeleteThe strategy I'm guessing at, if it was their attorneys' strategy or their own, was extremely clever and (assuming no false statements, fraud, etc.) entirely legal. It's not evil to have a meeting to discuss better terms and conditions for employees.
I'm only saying that they needed something other than their dispute over podcasts/noncompetes as a hook to be able to make their labor law argument, however tenuous. This meeting was it; and it needed to look like something other than a Cumulus versus Dan+Jake negotiation -- it needed more bodies. Bob and Jake were those bodies, and I'm sure they attended that meeting willingly and with the best of motives.
And, quite possibly, with Dan and Jake being pure of heart as well, if Cumulus would have said yes to everything that was being proposed. Did the lads really think that was likely?
And now, Bob and Corby read that they're the stars of the lads' sworn declarations, and will almost certainly become deposition and/or live witnesses, most likely against their employer.
I said this now well over a month ago and I will say it again:
ReplyDeleteThere are heroes here who are not. They will be exposed. Will that change anyone's preconceived perceptions? I highly doubt it. But exposed, they will be.
On a related note, here is a Tweet (or is it now an X?) from one Michael Gruber from 8/18/23. The timing and tone of this Tweet/X is somewhat suspicious. Especially when taking into consideration the DnJ situation and now Blake's departure. What's also, ahem, rich, here is that of all people, a guy who was brought up/still lives in luxury and for whom careers/jobs are purely a matter of passion and not necessity is taking an obvious shot at his now long ago (nearly a decade ago if not more) former employer who by all accounts treated him rather nicely (and did his father a favor by hiring him in the first place). Here's what Mr. Gruber had to say:
"Just got a paycheck with some new endorsements and it's quite a nice change of pace. It's apparently not difficult to find ways to compensate employees who provide a value beyond their "role." This tweet is irrelevant to anything happening anywhere, everywhere. I just like my gig." (1:07 a.m. 8/18/23)
A bit disappointing to read that. I always thought Grubes to better than that. Smarter, too. Because if DnJnB do magically find themselves at TF in a few months, well, then you know the fix was in from the jump. Moreover, it's cutesy Tweets and statements like this that could cause more legal woes down the road. 1:07 a.m.. Hope that buzz was a cool one, Grubes.
Pman,nothing rocky road posted is new news. His second sentence could have been written by my grandmother in Zaire. Re: heroes.
ReplyDeleteIs Dan and Jake pulling Bob and Corby into the meeting with management part of the record somewhere or is that an assumption? My understanding of how things happened is Corby was leading the charge to convince both sides to work it out. It would seem to me in this scenario he and Bob would've been the ones pushing for the meeting, not Dan and Jake pulling them in.
ReplyDeleteWe’re talking about two different meetings. You’re thinking about the fact that Corby said he got involved in trying to negotiate to get DnJ back, after things started going south. But the formal meeting Pman and others have been talking about is referenced in the legal documents from DnJ, saying that they and Corby and Bob met with Cat and Dan Bennet(t) and discussed aligning their contracts so they all ended at the same time, for more bargaining power. They report being told they could not discuss salaries or contracts with each other, which is one piece of their complaint against Cumulus
DeleteFor an industry built on billable this forum seems to have an excess of hours that could be put to more beneficial issues.
ReplyDeleteBravo Eugenia:
ReplyDeleteNo, there is no scenario worth betting on where D&J return to the Ticket. I suppose in some universe, they could come back, but in the real world that never happens. At least in the short term.
New post up. Tomorrow should be interesting; many questions answered, more asked.
ReplyDeleteHard agree Zulu…
ReplyDelete