Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

grock

Big Biz loss for Hartford=WFSB is gone

16 posts in this topic

I heard Scot Haney say today that they have moved to their new studio in Rocky Hill. What a big loss for the city. This can't be good for Perez in an election year. Does he have a plan to fill that spot on Constitution Plaza?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


http://www.wfsb.com/getinthehouse/index.html

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Bye, Bye Broadcast House

As many of you know, WFSB is moving into a brand-new building with all state-of-the-art technology -- Everything in it is new, except for the people! Most of the staff has already moved, but the news department is still working in Broadcast House until next week as crews put the finishing touches on our new newsroom......

NO PLANS of any kind for the building as far as I know - I say implode it and the "Hotel America" and start over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt a loss for DT but if we could get some new development in the plaza I'd be a happy camper.

I wonder if WFSB will broadcast the local news in HD now with the new facility?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see channel 30 or channel 8 take over WFSB's old building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30 is apparently building some place in West Hartford, and I doubt 8 is leaving New Haven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 is apparently building some place in West Hartford, and I doubt 8 is leaving New Haven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a great looking building from the outside, would have fit well on a downtown lot. Supposed to be a "wide open" style building inside, I guess similar to the CNN type set.

Hartford's loss is definitely Rocky Hill's gain. ING's new building in Windsor looks great also.

I wonder if mayor Perez will attend the ribbon cuttings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let's discuss why WFSB left. My understanding is that it bolted from discussions with the city when the city insisted on union labor and affirmative action policies. The problem, of course, is balancing the goals of fair labor standards and providing solid jobs for minorities (chiefly, Hartford residents) with the costs to businesses. One view is long: don't insist on these restrictions and make it easier to do business b/c despite the setback for labor today, the long-term benefits to the city will improve the station of all of its residents. The other view is short: Hartford residents need living-wage jobs now, and the return on investment is too far off.

What do you all think in general. Should the city stick to its guns in support of unions and minority-representation clauses, or do what Rocky Hill did--since they don't have to answer to those communities--and just say, here's the land, company. Build away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Unions politics were successful in the 1930s. Somebody In Connecticut needs to wake up and smell the coffee. You can't have jobs if you use unions to punish employers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you all think in general. Should the city stick to its guns in support of unions and minority-representation clauses, or do what Rocky Hill did--since they don't have to answer to those communities--and just say, here's the land, company. Build away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So let's discuss why WFSB left. My understanding is that it bolted from discussions with the city when the city insisted on union labor and affirmative action policies. The problem, of course, is balancing the goals of fair labor standards and providing solid jobs for minorities (chiefly, Hartford residents) with the costs to businesses. One view is long: don't insist on these restrictions and make it easier to do business b/c despite the setback for labor today, the long-term benefits to the city will improve the station of all of its residents. The other view is short: Hartford residents need living-wage jobs now, and the return on investment is too far off.

What do you all think in general. Should the city stick to its guns in support of unions and minority-representation clauses, or do what Rocky Hill did--since they don't have to answer to those communities--and just say, here's the land, company. Build away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still have a job due to my union.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still have a job due to my union.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spoke with a senior VP at a major int'l company who complained that they wanted to do a big convention in Boston for their northeast sales team. They had a national contractor they'd worked with on similar presentations in other parts of the country who managed the entire event, but the unions in Boston insisted on local union labor. Literally, the unions said one electrician could lay down the wire but couldn't plug it in. Each specific job had a specific person to do it, and only that person could. But the national contractor had a smaller work crew and each guy was qualified to do a number of jobs--lay the wire AND plug it in, etc.

So the event didn't happen there.

Although I'd like to live in a world where profits are shared with workers--where the wealth is distributed more evenly--when you're competing with right to work states, you can't insist on this crap b/c people simply will leave. You'll price yourself out of the market! In the long run, that's good for nobody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So let's discuss why WFSB left. My understanding is that it bolted from discussions with the city when the city insisted on union labor and affirmative action policies. The problem, of course, is balancing the goals of fair labor standards and providing solid jobs for minorities (chiefly, Hartford residents) with the costs to businesses. One view is long: don't insist on these restrictions and make it easier to do business b/c despite the setback for labor today, the long-term benefits to the city will improve the station of all of its residents. The other view is short: Hartford residents need living-wage jobs now, and the return on investment is too far off.

What do you all think in general. Should the city stick to its guns in support of unions and minority-representation clauses, or do what Rocky Hill did--since they don't have to answer to those communities--and just say, here's the land, company. Build away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Yeah and a lot of good the CWA was when I got layed off from a job back in 2001..... Unions are not bulletproof man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.