Verizon CFO: More Job Cuts Coming

said by don1p2:

For chrissakes, Bode, you never quit do you? Just what is your problem with the concept of "profit"? You, Obama, and your buddy, Che.

Your leftist act is wearing thin.

said by tdouglas22:

Well I can't speak for him but I know that I would be annoyed as well if I was working for a company that is making A LOT OF MONEY but laying off as if they aren't making a profit at all.

said by bicker:

No: He's entitled to be disappointed, and scared. He wasn't promised anything that would justify being pissed off, if the intended implication is that Verizon is doing something nefarious. Indeed, I think it is human nature for that second justified reaction -- fear -- to prompt reasonable people to jump to the unreasonable casting of aspersions.

said by bicker:

No: He's entitled to be disappointed, and scared. He wasn't promised anything that would justify being pissed off, if the intended implication is that Verizon is doing something nefarious. Indeed, I think it is human nature for that second justified reaction -- fear -- to prompt reasonable people to jump to the unreasonable casting of aspersions.

said by bicker:

Speak plainly: Make your accusation; make it explicit; refer directly to what promise or law is being violated -- OR admit that all it is is that you just don't like what's going on.

said by lakerfan82:

yeah there's a great idea... we wouldn't have anywhere close to half of the products you and I enjoy everyday if it weren't for investors! Who do you think helped verizon pay for their fios network? Do you think this stuff all just happens with magic? People, and companies, need investors so they can fund massive products and projects just like fios... by the way, who do think is "this guy making billions?" Its actually A VERY LARGE group of everyday people like you and me investing in stocks and mutual funds!!!

said by firephoto:

Who said it has to be a law?

said by firephoto:

Guess what, people don't like this because the guy making billions wants to make more by getting rid of employees.

said by firephoto:

It makes all the dead weight sitting back and doing NO work and only collecting money from part of the problem.

said by firephoto:

The laws need to be changed, the "for the investors" crap needs to stop.

said by bicker:

Sorry, but socialism isn't acceptable to many of us. (Or are you going to try to hide your comment here behind some feigned claim that you weren't talking about socialism? )

said by firephoto:

So what you're saying is that if a company can make money, use that money to expand and make more money, without investors, they are a socialist company?

said by bicker:

First, no one said that. If you have a problem with what I wrote, argue against what I wrote not some inane perversion of it that you find easier to argue against. Second, which company are you referring to, without investors, making more profit (for whom, by the way)? Be specific. Prove your point; don't weasel out.

said by bicker:

Again, no one said that. If you have a problem with what I wrote, argue against what I wrote not some inane perversion of it that you find easier to argue against. Second, which company are you referring to, without investors, making more profit (for whom, by the way)? Be specific. Prove your point; don't weasel out.

said by bicker:

Duh. You're your own investor, bub.

I suppose now you think every cable company should be just one guy getting checks from subscribers and stringing his own cables around a state.

said by bicker:

Sorry, but socialism isn't acceptable to many of us. (Or are you going to try to hide your comment here behind some feigned claim that you weren't talking about socialism? )

said by openbox9:

If VZ no longer requires the employees, what should they do with them? Keep paying them out of the kindness of its heart?

said by openbox9:

Employment is contingent upon many factors, one of which is a need for your services. If that need disappears, then so does employment.

said by tim_k:

The layoffs have gone far beyond what is needed to 'cut fat'. Service has been affected and will get worst.

said by bicker:

This is an important point (unlike most of the inane silliness other posters have posted, above).

What Verizon is doing reflects a clear understanding that consumers in general are not focused on quality or reliability. All they care about is getting the shiniest doodad for the lowest possible price. Until consumers change their behaviors, it would be irresponsible for corporations to fail to integrate this self-defeating behavior on the part of consumers into their business plans.

It is indefensible for a company to waste money on things that consumers will not factor into their purchasing decisions.

said by sonicmerlin:

Your arrogant dismissal of people's needs is infuriating.

said by sonicmerlin:

If people had some real competition...

said by sonicmerlin:

Please do not speak for the masses with your elitist, looney statements.

said by bicker:

This is an important point (unlike most of the inane silliness other posters have posted, above).

What Verizon is doing reflects a clear understanding that consumers in general are not focused on quality or reliability. All they care about is getting the shiniest doodad for the lowest possible price. Until consumers change their behaviors, it would be irresponsible for corporations to fail to integrate this self-defeating behavior on the part of consumers into their business plans.

It is indefensible for a company to waste money on things that consumers will not factor into their purchasing decisions.

said by jjeffeory:

Customers are also resistant to change and often don't have favorable options.

said by jjeffeory:

Also, when practically all companies are colluding

said by jjeffeory:

and doing the same thing, the customer just sticks with the devil you know. It's rather predatory to even talk about what you're talking about.

said by bicker:

True, but what was the relevance?

Buzz! Essentially, you're discrediting your entire point by making a wild-ass accusation, without being able to prove your claim with anything besides yet-even-more wild-ass innuendo and FUD.

Collusion is a legal term; collusion among competitors itself is illegal. First, get the Attorney General to agree with you. Second, get a judge to agree with the Attorney General. THEN, and only then, you can use that as a premise of an assertion you're making.

First, I'm describing reality. Describing reality isn't predatory. I'm ensuring that readers have a full understanding of the reality that they will face. That's not predatory.

Now you can choose to call what I'm describing "predatory". Predatory is a word that is often used in a non-legal context, and as such, there is some validity in labeling as "predatory" the understanding of what consumers are willing to pay, and for what, and providing them something and pricing it based on that information, just like a fisherman going back to a spot in a stream where his knowledge has led him to believe the best fishing can be had. Is the fisherman guilty of something?

said by openbox9:

If VZ no longer requires the employees, what should they do with them? Keep paying them out of the kindness of its heart?

said by don1p2:

For chrissakes, Bode, you never quit do you? Just what is your problem with the concept of "profit"? You, Obama, and your buddy, Che.

Your leftist act is wearing thin.

said by morbo:

and goodbye.

said by don1p2:

For chrissakes, Bode, you never quit do you? Just what is your problem with the concept of "profit"? You, Obama, and your buddy, Che.

Your leftist act is wearing thin.

said by jjeffeory:

I believe that there's this concept of being a good corporate citizen.

said by jjeffeory:

Also, long term thinking would be nice as well.

said by don1p2:

For chrissakes, Bode, you never quit do you? Just what is your problem with the concept of "profit"? You, Obama, and your buddy, Che.

Your leftist act is wearing thin.

said by Tobester:

GAWD! Do right-wing Republicans have to use every damn conversational thread on this website as a reason to bash Obama?

This website used to be less adversarial. Your comment was not.

said by don1p2:

For chrissakes, Bode, you never quit do you? Just what is your problem with the concept of "profit"? You, Obama, and your buddy, Che.

Your leftist act is wearing thin.

"don't worry Grampa, we'll just triple your daily dose of Oxycondone...you won't feel a thing."

said by burner50:

My company was also posting recored profits in the billions when I got laid off last year.

Lifes a bitch.

said by hottboiinnc:

because they don't have to.

Supply and demand. They have the supply, and you have the demand. You'll pay for what they want or you won't get it.

said by BosstonesOwn:

As a very talented IT worker , who is a contractor , I take offense to this.

I fix problems most of the normal IT workers cause. When there is issues , I am the one who fixes them because the normal IT workers have become to complacent and put off the job. I am the go to guy in every shop I go to. It's a real problem when a contractor is trusted more then a employee.

One great example is I recently worked for a company , their It staff had a few good folks who knew their stuff and ran most of the company.

They still have a huge load of people who aren't worth their weight. Just when I was about to be offered a slot on the full time roster there , another "worker" got jealous of the talent and worried for their job and started trouble , all to get me fired , which worked , they let me go.

This worker is also some one who approached me many times , to not script fixes to common issues because they were afraid of losing their job to some script running monkey.

Yeah that is a real great run shop. Contractors are doing the bulk of the work in many shops because of situations like this. Contractors actually have to work for a paycheck or are dropped asap. Unlike the lazy useless folks who just sit around surfing the net collecting a paycheck.

said by tech :

some of the people loosing their jobs are involved with fios and those jobs are not disappearing their still needed, the fios network is not easier to maintain ,anyone here have fios and have been through a good electrical storm knows what i am talking about let me know how good your services will be after the layoffs , and you call verizon for service and need someone out to fix it. welcome to verizon

said by sunny8294:

//sarcasm//
Why don't they outsource these jobs instead of taking them away completely since we have responsibilities for other parts of the worlds. Hell, why not outsource the FiOS Technicians as well?
//sarcasm//

said by ricep5:

In defense of Verizon, they could be shedding 40 year union members who pre-date the breakup and have expensive pensions and benefits plans that can't be supported in a shrinking copper market, the only one the members know and are too late in the game for retraining.

said by LuiS3 :

So how do you think you will get a better deal with FiOS when it cost VZ 800 dollars to get it at your house??, Business is Business

said by veloslave:

Employment is a side effect of profit... they are not there to provide a product at a break even or loss.

They are ONLY there to provide a product AT A PROFIT.

Verizon is acting in their responsibilty to provide as much profit possible to the people that took the risk by investing in them. It is NOT Verizon's money that is causing layoffs... it is the OWNERS OF THAT MONEY that want a profit (and not a social service) that are causing lay-offs and rightfully so.

If you take a job and think the company should keep you employed... even though they can do the job without you... then it is YOU that should have your motives examined NOT the company's.

Good for Verizon... it is keeping profitable that will allow them to continue with great service and new technology for years to come. It is a company like this (and I'll bet this is the case right now or very soon) that will be hiring back more than they laid off very soon or at the same time, of course that does not make the headlines.

FTR

No, I do not work for Verizon, nor have I ever or ANYONE I know for that matter. I do not own their stock (but it sounds like a very good idea if I had the $$)

I use their wireless service... have for many years and have a high opinion of them from that. I only TRULY wish I could get their FIOS and that I wasn't stuck in the hell hole of ATT territory.

OK, fine... let me have it, I can take it

said by veloslave:

Employment is a side effect of profit... they are not there to provide a product at a break even or loss.

They are ONLY there to provide a product AT A PROFIT.

Verizon is acting in their responsibilty to provide as much profit possible to the people that took the risk by investing in them. It is NOT Verizon's money that is causing layoffs... it is the OWNERS OF THAT MONEY that want a profit (and not a social service) that are causing lay-offs and rightfully so.

If you take a job and think the company should keep you employed... even though they can do the job without you... then it is YOU that should have your motives examined NOT the company's.

Good for Verizon... it is keeping profitable that will allow them to continue with great service and new technology for years to come. It is a company like this (and I'll bet this is the case right now or very soon) that will be hiring back more than they laid off very soon or at the same time, of course that does not make the headlines.

FTR

No, I do not work for Verizon, nor have I ever or ANYONE I know for that matter. I do not own their stock (but it sounds like a very good idea if I had the $$)

I use their wireless service... have for many years and have a high opinion of them from that. I only TRULY wish I could get their FIOS and that I wasn't stuck in the hell hole of ATT territory.

OK, fine... let me have it, I can take it

said by nonymous:

There where a number of contractor fatalities and injuries on the FIOS service rollout. Yes there are always accidents. No way around that. But when you go the cheapest, understaffed , quickest way safety takes a back seat increasing the likely hood of injuries or death. Verizon just probably figures the increase into workers comp into the budget.
The increased number of deaths and/or injuries vs. cost savings. Is it worth it?