2 edits | reply to pnh102
Re: Is It Really That Bad? All this doesn't matter. District 4 already ratified their contract. District 9 is probably going to as well.
AT&T had a plan to KO the union and they are picking them off one by one. District 3 is probably next to get District 4's deal. District 9 is done.
District 6, really the heart of AT&T since it near HQ, is the only one really doing anything. AT&T knows this and will get all the others to take a deal and leave them last union standing.
District 4 basically took a pay raise and now will pay a lot for healthcare. Round 1 - AT&T. District 9 settled for probably the same deal since T won't give one a better deal then the other. Round 2 - AT&T.
Distrct 3 is now in the uneviable position of making or breaking the union on paying for part of healthcare. If District 6 hasn't figured this out yet, they probably should. District 4 is weak since they are in high unemployment areas. District 3 has always been weak according to union members.
I bet District 1 settles before District 3.
After District 1 and 3 settles for a District 4 screwing, the game is over.
AT&T's CEO went about to break the union's resolve and he did.
No strike. 3 doesn't have the guts. 6 was waiting 4 and 3 to join them. 4 broke ranks and settled. District 6 might've been strong but isn't once 4 and 9 settled. District 3 would accept a lockout before a strike, but will accept a District 4 type contract before either.
AT&T isn't locking anyone out since they have the union on the run. AT&T knows it's just a matter of time before District 3 settles for their rearending. Then, AT&T can really give District 6 a final offer.
If District 6 stays out without a contract too long, I bet AT&T locks them out. They could move workers from other districts to keep it going till District 6 caves. Of course, if District 6 sees a lockout coming, they will take it in the rearend too.
AT&T management planned this out well and the dominos are falling in the union.
District 4 has already created a lot of hate from Prem Techs since Prem Techs will be sacrificed on the alter for the Union peeps. AT&T got the union thinking, "Hey, if we lose our jobs, we can just take a Prem Tech's job. Prem Techs aren't union anyway, right?" Prem techs didn't vote on the District 4 contract. |
|
 Homer JMmmm, Free Goo
join:2000-10-05
Springfield | So the union is expected to pay for part of their healthcare, sounds like a fair deal to me. If they were getting such a bad deal why accept it? Oh yeah a job is better than none at all. They should be happy they are working and simply go do their jobs. They are welcome to seek employment elsewhere anytime they like, if they are not happy with their current situation. |
|
|
|
| reply to cameronsfx
Good job there to AT&T. Maybe now we can get some better products and services because of lower overhead from keeping the union around.
--
Ali Fazel
i2Telecom Representative |
|
| reply to Homer J
Maybe we need to emulate china more. Anyone alive should be happy. |
|
| reply to Homer J
said by Homer J:So the union is expected to pay for part of their healthcare, sounds like a fair deal to me. If they were getting such a bad deal why accept it? Oh yeah a job is better than none at all. They should be happy they are working and simply go do their jobs. They are welcome to seek employment elsewhere anytime they like, if they are not happy with their current situation. District 4 and 9 accepted it. District 1 is in the weak area so they will cave. District 3 will cave too as usual. District 6 will eventually when the others do.
One may note AT&T wireless employees got a good contract. AT&T employees envy that bunch.
AT&T ain't VZ. VZ got a good contract. VZ has FiOs to look forward to and dumping all the unprofitable areas will make VZ smaller but stronger. AT&T still has all those unprofitable areas. |
|
Homer JMmmm, Free Goo
join:2000-10-05
Springfield | Ok, so since one area accepted the deal and the others followed suit they got a bad deal. If it was such a bad deal the first group should not have accpeted the deal. AT&T is going to use what advantage they have when negotiating a contract, that's just good business. The union is going to do the same, so not sure what the problem is. The union is likely to negotiate in their own self interest, which may not always be in the best interest of it's memebers, but that is up to it's members to decide. |
|
| reply to Homer J
said by Homer J:So the union is expected to pay for part of their healthcare, sounds like a fair deal to me. If they were getting such a bad deal why accept it? Oh yeah a job is better than none at all. They should be happy they are working and simply go do their jobs. They are welcome to seek employment elsewhere anytime they like, if they are not happy with their current situation. You're kidding. Please tell me you're kidding. You have got to be the most narrow-minded...no never mind there are even worse people out there. Look, AT&T makes BILLIONS in profit every freaking year. They don't make that money unless their employees do their jobs at least well enough to maintain the customers. The corporation's wealth is generated almost entirely by the workers. The employees should not "be happy" with their current situation. As bogey just implied, your attitude would lead us into the situation that Chinese wage-workers experience. You are a complete tool who is at best insensitive, and at worst utterly evil. |
|
| reply to i2Fuzzy
said by i2Fuzzy:Good job there to AT&T. Maybe now we can get some better products and services because of lower overhead from keeping the union around. Are you joking? Sarcasm doesn't communicate well over the internet. No wait... I see the tag "Telecom Representative".
AT&T already makes something like $12 billion a year in profit. How would "decreasing overhead" and further increasing their profits result in better services? Is 12 billion not enough? |
|
| i2Telecom is the name of my company. I answer the phone and give remote tech support. I do a damn good job.
And I don't work in any union.
AT&T is in business to make a profit, not to supply you with jobs. They give you a job because you can go out and make *them* money. They pay you for your services. What they want to pay you is up to them. If employees don't like it they don't have to accept it.
The real problem with unions is not that they negotiate for union members, but that they also tend to mold their members into a shapeless mush of group-think. They present an air of entitlement to the employees and down-talk the company they work for.
--
Ali Fazel
i2Telecom Representative |
|
Homer JMmmm, Free Goo
join:2000-10-05
Springfield | reply to sonicmerlin
So At&T should not make a profit. They have a responsibility to their shareholders to make a profit and expand the business where possible.
My attitude would lead to people being paid a fair wage for the work they perform and would be based on their own work ethic and performance. My co-worker would be judged on his own merit as well, if he does not perform as well he would either not be paid as much or fired for non-performance.
The Chine references are all just union scare tactics. You seem to be buying them entirely. You need to learn to look at things from outside of the union box and realize they are not the be all end all. |
|
Homer JMmmm, Free Goo
join:2000-10-05
Springfield | reply to sonicmerlin
So it is your job to judge how much money AT&T is allowed to make? |
|
rody_44Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA | reply to sonicmerlin
you do a job, that jobs worth a certain value. how much money the company makes is irrelevant. i remember a few years ago how the car makers were making so much money and that somehow made the uaw labor more valueable. now here we are a few years later and our tax dollars are now paying them inflated labor rates. bottom line is no company is staying in bussiness paying 45 dollars a hour when real life value is less. nobody is forcing any of these people to work there. |
|
| reply to cameronsfx
And Larry Cohen salutes the bargaining heroes in Dist 4. We in District 1 thought signing on with CWA would give us some bargaining strength. Wish I could go back to 1998 and re-vote.
District 1 still has our Article 7 provisions. And we will not be giving them up.
Hope 1 and 6 are standing strong together at the end of all this. We'll continue to fight no matter how long it takes. I never liked the dues money we were paying to the National anyway. |
|
| reply to Homer J
said by Homer J:Ok, so since one area accepted the deal and the others followed suit they got a bad deal. If it was such a bad deal the first group should not have accpeted the deal. AT&T is going to use what advantage they have when negotiating a contract, that's just good business. The union is going to do the same, so not sure what the problem is. The union is likely to negotiate in their own self interest, which may not always be in the best interest of it's memebers, but that is up to it's members to decide. Well, Homer, I think AT&T gave them all the best deal they could. The Union is just going to have to realize that healthcare costs money. Now, the union screwing Prem Techs for union people is just the union way. |
|
