Mayor McDermott No Longer On WJOB?

Someone is claiming that Jed said he had again decided that the Mayor would know longer be on the station anymore. Anyone know the details?

If this is true,it doesn't sound like a very smart move to me on WJOB's part. Businesses have been trying to reduce costs whenever possible,including cutting back on advertising.In order to compete for advertising dollars,you need listeners. Why would WJOB want to discontinue a popular program like the Mayor's call in show? WJOB already has a far lower profile in the community than they had a few years ago. They used to sponsor a golf outing, participate in parades, do remote shows. These are the kind of things that draw listeners to your station.

I dont have any idea if it is true or not but I always liked hearing from the public and trying to solve the problems that were called in. Seems to me if Jed isnt allowing the mayor on his show that maybe he is letting personal stuff get in the way of professional stuff. that is never smart business.

I would like to ask a question. In every given community that I've lived in, a "Channel 3" was devoted to open council meetings, or important messages within the community, and even advertisements from fellow community members.

I do recall some type of discussion as to why Hammond or Indiana is never included or never held a private channel with news, etc. Like NBC, ABC, or whatever. Why in this day and age, does Hammond or Indiana the state, not have a prominent, independent station on TV, vs. the old 1950's way of doing things on the radio?

It's especially important, because we are a part of the snow belt, we should not hear from Channel 2 on RARE occasions whatever little tid-bits they hand out about Northwest Indiana.

Why in the heck in this day of technology, does Indiana, not have their own tv station/news/weather/crime reports, or a channel exposing council meetings like other communities do?

I just don't understand it. The demand is there, it's an opportunity to get up and get "with it" technology wise. Listening to a radio doesn't sound modern to me, even though I wouldn't be able to hear directly what is being said.

But, a tv station, with captioning, looking for a market to create jobs..here's the opportunity and I wonder why it isn't being tapped into? Why do we have to listen to three channels of Chicago, our CNN for outside news? I want to know what is going on in Indiana...not Chicago. And I WANT captioning!

i hope its not true. as far as i know jim and the mayor were getting on fine. i know the mayor was out of town between christmas and new years but i believe he came back on wednesday.

ur. nwi does have channel 56 (merrillville) and they have a local newscast. the number changes depending on your cable operator and wow customers (because it originates from naperville) in hammond dont get it.

comcast does operate a local channel 3 operation for its subscribers out of its merrillville/gary office as well. but they killed thier own news program a couple of years ago (still has some local origination though), and for some reason they have never extended that reach to its hammond subscribers.

Wow, that explains it. I've got WOW! Naperville? So I don't get the channel 56.

What the hell does Naperville know about Hammond? We're hillbillies, they are snobs!

What's it take to get a channel in Indiana, without Comcast? Think Preacher could handle that?

No.

UrRight wrote:

What's it take to get a channel in Indiana, without Comcast? Think Preacher could handle that?

$$$$ is what it would take


and I doubt Preacher has enough $$$$ to do it, even with selling ads and only talking for 5 minutes at a time and taking 5 minute commercial breaks

Mirage wrote:

No.

well. it was a quick post, but it qualifies. welcome back! (some were worried about you)

I never knew a guy (preacher) who could talk to himself for so long all the while laughing at his own jokes.

I would expect to hear the Mayors show tomorrow morning!

I think the mayor will be on tomorrow to announce the new Firefighter contract approved by a 3-1 margin by the men.
But I could be wrong.

that would be a good thing if so.

Guess the story wasn't true. The mayor is on now.

Let me know what he says, Board Monkey...I can't distinquish the words off a radio....anything that's important or funny. LOL

new ff and police contracts approved according to mayor on wjob

FFScott wrote:

I think the mayor will be on tomorrow to announce the new Firefighter contract approved by a 3-1 margin by the men.
But I could be wrong.

The Mayor's show was very interesting today.It sounds to me like the negotiator for the fire fighter's union cost you $4,800 when he turned down the $100/month bonus that the Mayor offered 4 years ago for firefighters who are Hammond residents. I am surprised that so many firefighters don't live in Hammond. I will say that the cool ones are Hammond boys.

sparks wrote:

FFScott wrote:

I think the mayor will be on tomorrow to announce the new Firefighter contract approved by a 3-1 margin by the men.
But I could be wrong.

The Mayor's show was very interesting today.It sounds to me like the negotiator for the fire fighter's union cost you $4,800 when he turned down the $100/month bonus that the Mayor offered 4 years ago for firefighters who are Hammond residents. I am surprised that so many firefighters don't live in Hammond. I will say that the cool ones are Hammond boys.

State law dictates that they do not have to(I believe). I think there is a limit as to how far they can live away from the city as well though

mike3775 wrote:

sparks wrote:

FFScott wrote:

I think the mayor will be on tomorrow to announce the new Firefighter contract approved by a 3-1 margin by the men.
But I could be wrong.

The Mayor's show was very interesting today.It sounds to me like the negotiator for the fire fighter's union cost you $4,800 when he turned down the $100/month bonus that the Mayor offered 4 years ago for firefighters who are Hammond residents. I am surprised that so many firefighters don't live in Hammond. I will say that the cool ones are Hammond boys.

State law dictates that they do not have to(I believe). I think there is a limit as to how far they can live away from the city as well though

I'm aware of that.However,it is legal to pay a bonus for firefighters who do choose to live in the city of Hammond.It's good public policy as well,IMO.

I am not saying I don't think its a good idea, I think it is.

But I can also see why some may feel that it is showing a bit of favoritism as well.

A union is supposed to represent all its constituents equally regardless of where they live. Seems like that's what the BA was doing.

mike3775 wrote:

I am not saying I don't think its a good idea, I think it is.

But I can also see why some may feel that it is showing a bit of favoritism as well.

I honestly don't see why new hired firefighters couldn't be offered more money to live within the city or even be required to do so period. I don't care what the union thinks about it.

I can at least appreciate the case against offering a bonus to current firefighters to live in the city. I don't agree with it but I can understand it better. But I would agree they shouldn't be forced to relocate as they should be grandfathered in.

A better case against such rules or incentives I might could see in the police department, especially if they participate in undercover operations. OTOH I don't feel city cops should be running undercover operations too much and that the county and state should really be enforcing the more serious crimes. Seems like this city's police don't care much about property crimes, which is exactly what they SHOULD be doing 2nd after traffic. Especially so if you consider property crimes to be associated with local gangs. Seems to me like we have too many jurisdictions covering essentially the same types of crimes like murders and little gets done by anyone about panhandling, gangs, and property theft unless someone gets killed.

Robin Banks wrote:

A union is supposed to represent all its constituents equally regardless of where they live. Seems like that's what the BA was doing.

I think that it is the duty of the business agent is to negotiate the best contract possible. How is it in the best interests of the members to turn down a residency bonus? One third of the Hammond firefighter lost almost $5,000
because of his decision.

not sure if this adds to the discussion or not, the credit for living in hammond issue, im told was also a matter for city teamster workers in our last contract negotiation in approx 2007. something like a one time 1500 dollar bonus for employees that owned a residence in the city. the teamster employees voted it down narrowly, and instead asked for a bigger raise. they didnt get it (but got a few other concesssions instead such as a quarterly on time and perfect attendance bonus). and when they went back to asking for the hometown bonus again they found it off the table.

the oracle wrote:

not sure if this adds to the discussion or not, the credit for living in hammond issue, im told was also a matter for city teamster workers in our last contract negotiation in approx 2007. something like a one time 1500 dollar bonus for employees that owned a residence in the city. the teamster employees voted it down narrowly, and instead asked for a bigger raise. they didnt get it (but got a few other concesssions instead such as a quarterly on time and perfect attendance bonus). and when they went back to asking for the hometown bonus again they found it off the table.

I believe it is always good policy to have the employees of a city live in that city.The Mayor made a smart move when he required the department heads live in Hammond. Employees who live in the city have a greater stake in what happens to the city.