Sinclair Employees Say Their Contracts Make It Too Expensive to Quit

[brooklynite]

Bloomberg:

After Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. drew widespread criticism for having anchors read a statement taking aim at the integrity of other U.S. media outlets, many wondered why some of the company’s journalists didn’t just quit.

The short answer is the cost may be too steep. According to copies of two employment contracts reviewed by Bloomberg, some Sinclair employees were subject to a liquidated damages clause for leaving before the term of their agreement was up: one that requires they pay as much as 40 percent of their annual compensation to the company.

While they were also subject to a six-month noncompete clause and forced arbitration, three current and former Sinclair employees said it was the potential financial penalty that had the greatest impact on those thinking of quitting. Under the clause, there’s a specific window of time during which employees can give notice. One current employee who requested anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to speak publicly said the clause’s limitations are the reason he hasn’t quit. A former employee who also requested anonymity said both the noncompete and the damages clause dissuaded her at first from looking for work elsewhere.

Multiple employment lawyers said the damages clause wouldn’t turn up in most employment contracts. “They are pretty rare—for ordinary workers at least,” said Peter Romer-Friedman, an attorney at Outten & Golden LLP, a labor law firm. But they are more common in the broadcast industry, specifically when dealing with on-air talent. The clause serves to protect companies from costs associated with replacing an anchor who suddenly leaves, for example. Yet at Sinclair, at least some employees who never appeared on television were still required to sign such contracts, the former employees said.

[Wellstone ruled]

1. So now we have overpaid Propagandist!

Seems to be the coin of the Rhelm .

[MineralMan]

2. Then, they should simply refuse and be fired.

Make the company fire them.

[lunasun]

4. Then they are back to not performing per contract . Basically they are payed hostages & if they

can afford to buy themselves out of the situation they can leave cuz everyone has large parts of thier future salary laying around to use that way

[gratuitous]

8. Or read the assigned text like a hostage video

Flat affect, no intonation, complete monodrone voice. Learn how to blink in Morse code to say, "This is total bullshit, and I'm only doing this because I have kids in college."

[OldHippieChick]

11. I agree this is their best option unless they can

afford to pay a penalty.

[eppur_se_muova]

14. And sign off with "dasvidaniya" ! nt

[MyOwnPeace]

3. I, for one..............

can understand and respect those that read the "corporate barf" rather than quit.
No matter how successful the magnificent Trump economic program is ( ) - it is NOT easy to leave a job where you have worked for several, maybe even many years and hope to go out and find one that is compensating you in a comparable manner.

Yes, principles are important - but food on the table and cash in the bank helps support those principles.

Don't shoot the messenger, fight to correct the message!

[angrychair]

9. No

That argument has never held water.

The “I was just doing my job” argument does not give them or anyone a pass on doing shitty or illegal things. There are, literally, hundreds of examples when that excuse failed. It’s not even hard to find.

They are journalists. They are knowingly lying. They are knowingly spreading propaganda.


Contracts are not that airtight. Nothing stops them from taking it to court or arbitration.

[MyOwnPeace]

13. Maybe for you............

it doesn't hold water, but for someone who needs a job..........................................

[Binkie The Clown]

5. For evil to prevail it is only necessary for good people to do nothing. nt

[C_U_L8R]

6. Resist and jam the machine.

There is a lot of good they can do on the inside.

[extvbroadcaster]

7. TV is a crap business

I speak from experience, TV is a crap business. Its no good unless you are in a major market and even then it might blow. And don't be too envious of high priced "talent" - they sign contracts and if they get too old, fat, lip off too much - when the time comes their contract is "not renewed" and they have to hit the road. Also all you have to do is go down to market 100 or so and you will be shocked at the pimply faced kids on the air. They are right out of college, have stars in their eyes and will work for peanuts. If they are smart they flee the business in a few years and go do something else. It does not surprise me that Sinclair would force on air talent to "read it or else" - welcome to show biz!

[Freddie]

10. 100% correct

Smaller market media is not a "glamorous career" like being the anchor of the 6:00 pm news in Philly. Low pay (compared to big cities), no job security and hundreds of bright-eyed kids in line to take your job. I've seen the comments "why don't they just quit" - maybe they want to eat? My brother is a radio personality in a small market, might make $30000/year. He works for a (rare) independently owned station and loves his job but it's far from "glamorous".

[murielm99]

12. My daughter-in-law

used to have a similar job. She interviewed everyone under the sun from politicians to movie stars. But after she prepared her show, made the public appearances required and went to meetings, her pay worked out to less than a dollar an hour. She found another job, even though she loves broadcasting.