NAB reports (Jan-Dec 1942)

granting, without hearing. Station VVCOL a CP for change of frequency and increase of power. ASCAP During the summer and fall of 1941, negotiations with .^SC.^P were in progress. NAB was instrumental in securing local station contracts much more advantageous to stations than those offered by ASC.AP immediately prior to the St. Louis Convention. NEWSPAPER-RADIO HEARINGS On July 23, 1941, the FCC opened hearings on Orders No. 79 and 79A to investigate whether newspapers should be licensed to operate radio stations. The Newspaper-Radio Committee, which had been organized in April, 1941, for the purpose of presenting to the Commission a point of view representative of newspapers interested in the broadcasting industry, retained Judge Thomas Thacher and Sydney M. Kaye as counsel. The pro¬ tracted hearings have not as yet been concluded. CODE COMMITTEE Right up until Pearl Harbor, considerable time was required by Counsel, as Secretary of the Code Compliance Committee, in assisting in the interpretation of the controversial public issues section of the Code, chiefly in connection with the isolationistinterventionist issue. Since the first of the year the Code Com¬ mittee has met twice; notable in its work was the promulgation of recommendations with reference to news broadcasts in war time, made in collaboration with other elements of the industry and government officials. MISCELLANEOUS Throughout the year national defense and war have been upper¬ most in the minds of the N.-\B staff in their thinking and work. The Legal Department has maintained close contact with Selec¬ tive Service Headquarters in an effort to assist stations to secure temporary deferment of engineers subject to the draft wherever it would be difficult, if not impossible, to replace them. Close contact with the WPB on priorities and the OPA on tire regula¬ tions has been maintained. Correspondence with stations and their attorneys on numerous matters, assistance to staff and general office work have consumed considerable time. Respectfully submitted, Russell P. Pl.^ce, Counsel. May 1, 1942. Labor Relations Department The broadcasting industry’s progressive labor policy has success¬ fully stood the test of another year. It has been a difficult year in the field of labor relations. With our country preparing for war, and at war, everyone has been called upon to make sacrifices. When sacrifice is the order of the day, everyone tends to think that he is doing his share, or more — but how about the other fellow? That is human. Labor rela¬ tions are human relations. Hence, it could be expected that man¬ agement, generally, would question whether labor has done its share. On the other hand, labor has questioned whether manage¬ ment has done its share. Skyrocketing taxes and cost of living, an increasing shortage of labor, and the necessity for uninterrupted production were enough factors in themselves to make a difficult labor relations problem for the country in 1941-42. To this was added a heated debate on the so-called “social gains” of the past decade, and on the nature of the proper relationship between trade unions and em¬ ployers. The debate has been heated and endless. National labor policy, at the moment, seems to be about as fol¬ lows: 1. Labor voluntarily has surrendered the right to strike, in the interest of uninterrupted production for war. 2. All issues unsettled by direct negotiation must be arbitrated. 3. The relationship between management and unions (“closed shop”) and wage rates are among the issues subject to arbitration, although wages are not to be increased unless they are “sub¬ standard” or make for “inequalities.” 4. The “social gains” remain. During the heat of all the debate on these issues, the broad¬ casting industry, by and large, has had another year of peaceful relationship with labor. Strikes have been few. Mutual under¬ standing of each other’s problems has increased. As the indus¬ try's income has increased, wages and salaries have risen steadily. The N.AB again proposes to continue its current labor policy through the year to come. Members will be kept advised of trends and developments in the field of labor relations. They will be informed of any changes in labor laws that affect their opera¬ tions. They may call upon the labor relations director for direct assistance with their individual or collective labor problems. They will find available at the NAB a growing fund of information useful in collective bargaining. The labor relations director will continue his efforts to preserve and foster the general goodwill between the industry and the labor movement, and w'ill count on the continued assistance of the entire membership in this work. Following is a topical review of labor developments related to the industry since the St. Louis convention in May, 1941. RADIO’S PAYROLL The latest Federal Communications Commission report, for the week of October 13, 1940, shows that the broadcasting industry paid its 19,326 full time employees an average of $41.50. This figure compared wdth $41.08 for the w'eek of October IS, 1939. Executives were not included. Nor do these figures include the highly paid program stars and directors whose fees or salaries come from advertisers or advertising agencies. The salary trend in radio has been steadily upward since the Fall of 1940. The $41.50 average noted above probably would be nearly 10 per cent higher today — near the top among the nation’s industries. STRIKES There has been only one actual strike since Pearl Harbor in the entire broadcasting industry. It lasted less than two hours. Technicians at a mid-western station were involved. Wages was the issue. 'WAGNER ACT Generally speaking, the broadcasting industry’s record for com¬ pliance with the Wagner Act continues to be much better than average. As the requirements of the Act and the technique of collective bargaining are better understood, violations will dis¬ appear. The Labor Relations Board has not found a single station guilty of any violations during the past year, although two examiners reports finding violation are now before the Board for considera¬ tion. In both cases the stations w'ere alleged to have interfered with their technicians’ right to organize. Neither of these stations belongs to the NAB. We point this out, not to insinuate that