Jump to content

Big Biz loss for Hartford=WFSB is gone

grock

By grock
in Greater Hartford

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 15
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Theophrastus Bombastus Hamlet

Theophrastus Bombastus

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
htfdtimeforchange Unincorporated Area

htfdtimeforchange

Posted
Posted

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whaler0718 Whistle-Stop

Whaler0718

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drc72 Burg

drc72

Posted
Posted
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimSawhill Hamlet

JimSawhill

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whaler0718 Whistle-Stop

Whaler0718

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jcrc Hamlet

jcrc

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.