NAB reports (Jan-Dec 1940)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

of AKiiciiHurc and Immigration certain powers and duties with respect to certain foods, and to provide penalties for violations of this act. Referred to Committee on Agriculture. Labor WAGE AND HOUR ACT 'I'hc Wage and Hour Administration’s ruling that “talent charges” must be included in calculating the basic pay of broadcasting station employees is not as far-reach¬ ing as it might seem at first glance. Talent charges need not be included when the broad¬ casting station is not the employer of the talent. The Internal Revenue Bureau, in its Social Security tax rulings, has defined when the broadcaster is the employer, and when he is not. An official summary of these rulings was printed in the December 31, 1938, issue of The Billboard. In part, the summary said: “.\s a part of the service provided in connection with the purchase of physical facilities (by advertisers or their agents) the broadcasting companies supply announcers, production men. et cetera, selected at the discretion of the broadcasting companies from their regular staffs. However, if an advertiser desires to have a particular announcer appear on his program he negotiates a contract with the broadcasting company for the services of the announcer at a specified sum per broadcast. This sum, minus the regular management commission of the broadcasting com¬ pany's artists’ service, is paid to the announcer in addition to his regular compensation from the company. Under such an ar¬ rangement the broadcasting company retains no direction or control over the manner in or the method by which the announcer performs his services, acting merely as his agent in procuring the engagement, and is therefore not considered to be the employer of the announcer with respect to those services. . . . “In some cases the broadcasting company agrees with the sponsor to furnish a program of a particular type designed to occupy the time which the sponsor has purchased in order to advertise his products or services. Under this arrangement the broadcasting company agrees to deliver to the sponsor what might be designated as a ‘complete package’ or a finished product for a pre-determined price. In such cases the sponsor has nothing to do with the selection of the artists, the presentation of the program or the direction and control exercised over the talent appearing therein, these matters being solely within the province of the broadcasting company. Such programs, termed ‘studiobuilt' programs, are formulated by the broadcasting company on its own account, produced under its own direction and control, without interference from the sponsor, and furnished to the latter as a complete package for a lump-sum payment. The individuals performing services on such studio-built programs may generally be said to be employees of the broadcasting company.” In other words, if the broadcaster makes a talent charge, passes it on to, say, an announcer, but is not the announcer’s employer in the above sense as far as the particular program goes, then the talent charge need not be included in basic pay. The N.\B Labor Relations Director has notified the Wage and Hour .Administration that he has sent out the above opinion. ( Xote: The NAB Labor Relations Director was wrongly injormed when he said in N.AB Reports of February 16 that a sponsor had to pay talent directly to qualify as “the employer.” ) A federal district judge in North Carolina has ruled that watchmen in industries covered by the Wage and Hour Act were included in the coverage. “Watchmen are just as much engaged in the production of goods that are going into commerce as the man saw¬ ing logs,” the judge said. “It would have been cruel of Congress to have legislated otherwise.” The Wage and Hour Administration has amended its regulations regarding the keeping of records. If the complete records are filed in an office away from the place of employment, an abbreviated record showing total hours worked and total wages paid each week must be filed “at the place of employment.” A strict interpretation of this would mean that an abbreviated record should be kept for transmitter engineers at the transmitter. How¬ ever, this seems to be unreasonable, and the N.AB Labor Relations Director is asking for an opinion from the .Administration. The new regulations also provide that complete records must be kept on file for four years, and abbreviated records, if any, for two years. The Act requires every employer subject to any provi¬ sions of the Act or any order issued under the Act to “make and preserve records” showing the full name of the person employed, home address, date of birth if under 19, hours worked each workday and each workweek; regular rate of pay and basis upon which wages are paid ; wages at the regular rate of pay for each workweek excluding extra compensation attributable to the excess of the overtime rate over the regular rate; extra wages for each workweek attributable to the excess of the over¬ time rate over the regular rate; additions to cash wages at cost, or deductions from stipulated wages in the amount deducted or at the cost of the item for which deduction is made, whichever is less; total wages paid for each work¬ week, and date of payment. The success of a group of track workers in suing the .Atlantic Coast Line railroad for double the amount il¬ legally withheld from them in wages indicates that em¬ ployees’ suits may be a major factor in the enforcement of the Wage and Hour Act, said Colonel Philip B. Flem¬ ing of the Wage and Hour Division, U. S. Department of Labor, shortly after his appointment as .Administrator was confirmed by the Senate. “I am calling attention to this in the hope that the management of establishments covered by the Wage and Hour Law — that is, those engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for interstate commerce — who have not yet put their houses in order under the .Act, will do so before situations like this accumulate to serious proportions,” he added. March 1, 1940 4066