Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | Home RSS


February 18, 2013
Salem News

Only one side of story was told

To the editor:

The recent front page article about the union picketing outside of Ventra hit a nerve with me. It was very slanted to pro-union and only told one side of the story. This is not news, this is opinion since not both sides were taken into account.

The employees of Ventra Salem have refused union membership by a majority vote several times. The last time the UAW tried to organize within the Salem plant, they were not even able to acquire enough votes for them to organize strongly.

In this country, the majority decides for the minority. If you wish for the minority to decide for the majority then maybe another country is for you.

The employees of Ventra are receiving a competitive wage for the area. They receive several benefits including hospitalization. Yes, there have been cutbacks but to remain competitive many companies need to make cutbacks.

You mentioned that an employee flipped the union off, but you failed to mention that they were blocking the view of exiting motorists of Pennsylvania Avenue. This is against the law last I checked, last I heard this is called obstructing view. I guess breaking the law is acceptable if it is for an issue the newspaper agrees with.

For clarity purposes, I am a subscriber to the Morning Journal (sister publication of the Salem News) but if this form of one sided reporting continues as news, I won't be long. I am an employee of Ventra, but since the company and I often don't see eye to eye, I have no problem with you posting my name.

As for the union, I voted for them at the last election, but I am an American and accept the majority rule which this nation was formed upon.

In the future please get both sides of a story before publishing.



An update on landowners' lawsuit

To the editor:

As a landowner in the Brinker Storage Field, I would like to update everyone about our lawsuit against Columbia Gas/ Nisource.

We as a group of hundreds of landowners, have filed a case against the gas company concerning the old Manufacturers Light and Heat leases. The case has 110 plaintiffs.

Our particular lease was signed over 65 years ago, and to this date, there has never been nothing done on our property, no wells or pipelines. Columbia Gas/Nisource claims that a production clause in the old lease gives them the right to claim our deep drilling rights and to be able to claim the money from the gas and oil taken from our property, giving us only about $200 per year for anything that comes from our ground.

My husband and I are being represented by the law firm of Scullin & Cunning, in Boardman, Ohio. The lawsuit is moving along quite well in spite of Columbia Gas/Nisource's efforts to end it. We hope to have this matter resolved in the near future, so we can receive the benefits from our property.

A while back there was some confusion about what we were actually wanting from this lawsuit. We are aware of Columbia's claimed storage lease, but that alone does not give them the right to profit from our minerals under the storage field. We own the minerals on our farm, not Columbia Gas/Nisource.





I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web