Heinl radio business letter (July-Dec 1944)

9/6/44 WIML challenged AFRA' s demand for assigned commercial fees because of Its firm belief that so long as it agrees to compensate Its staff fairly and adequately and to provide suitable working con¬ ditions, it should not be subjected to dictation as to the manner in which it shall operate its business. In requesting this Board to ignore and reverse the recommendation of its Hearing Officer, WlAL did so in the conviction that neither this Board nor any other govern¬ mental agency should, by its order, coerce an employer to adopt a method of compensation bearing no rational relationship to the amount, quality, or character of work done but which, on the other hand, is based on the lone and unwarranted assumption that an employee's com¬ pensation must be made relative to the amount of gross profits earned by the employer even though his work has nothing to do with the sec¬ uring of commercial accounts, ^JThile it was recognized that an employer might see fit voluntarily to offer certain or all of its employees a bonus or extra compensation based upon earnings or in¬ creases in earnings, it was inconceivable that an employer could be forced into the adoption of such a plan merely because the National representatives of its employees desired its adoption. ’’Ihe implications of AFPlA's demands were far reaching. In effect, it was that if one station in a community agrees to a prin¬ ciple proposed by AFRA, the remaining competitive stations ultimately will have to fall in line, and thus, one’s competitors could exer¬ cise control over the business practices of each other, ”The Union proposal would have imposed upon WMAL a system of compensating its staff announcers which is in no way reflective of value received. The company no longer would be permitted to use value of services as the gauge for determining compensation. The only circumstance which would bring about changes in the pay of each individual would be an uncontrollable one. The announcer who had the good fortune of being assigned to a tour of duty during which the greatest number of local commercial programs were broadcast would receive the largest compensation. He had no part in the securing of these commercial accounts, and his particular talents played no part whatever in the determination by the sponsor to buy the program, since the, sponsor, under the assigned fee method, does not select the announcer. ”WMAL strenuously urged the War Labor Board to give con¬ sideration to the fact that if it were required to adopt the assigned fee principle in connection with its announcers, it inevitably would be faced with demands by its other employees for comparable provi¬ sions in their employment agreements. In order to put a program on the air, commercial or sustaining, it is necessary to have transmitter engineers, control engineers, production men, sound effects men, news editors, script writers, and administrative help. If an announcer is entitled to extra compensation every time a commercial program is put on the air, there is no sound reason why the studio engineer, sound effects man, or any other employee of the station cannot assert a similar right. It is all too clear that if the National War Labor Board, by its decision in this case, had required the station to negotiate with AFRA on this basis of fees for all assigned commercials, Station WMAL would soon lose its character as a unified broadcasting 3