Unions Are Selling You Out on AT&T T-Mobile Pretending That T-Mobile Job Losses Will Actually be Job Gains Wednesday Jul 13 2011 10:59 EDT According to the Washington Post, the Obama administration finds itself stuck between consumer advocacy on one hand, and unions on the other when it comes to approving AT&T's $39 billion acquisition of T-Mobile. Unions very much support the deal, claiming it will bring high-speed Internet connections to rural areas more quickly and create 100,000 new jobs. Neither of those are necessarily true as we've explored; AT&T's post T-Mobile broadband plans look no different than they do now, and such mergers usually result in the elimination of significant employee redundancies. Says the Post: quote: The merger would put eight out of 10 cellphone contracts in the hands of AT&T and its biggest competitor, Verizon Wireless. But the CWA says the new AT&T would generate about 100,000 jobs through a promised $8 billion in investment to expand its high-speed wireless network — a powerful argument at a time of soaring unemployment.
Which is interesting, except for the fact that those 100,000 jobs will never actually happen. The EPI study the CWA uses to pull that 100,000 job total number is actually referring to "job years" -- which is defined as "one year of employment." The real total of actual new jobs -- if there are any -- will be a small fraction of that total. In fact, layoffs will be a consistent story at both AT&T and Verizon, as both companies continue to lose traditional landline subscribers. AT&T's U-Verse deployment has also been largely frozen, impacting job creation. That's before you get to the elimination of redundant T-Mobile retail locations, and the elimination of redundant T-Mobile support and executive positions. That $8 billion investment number? Also not really quite what AT&T and the CWA would have you believe. AT&T has told investors they expect the new, combined AT&T T-Mobile to reduce investment by $10 billion over 6 years as part of deal "synergies." While AT&T insists they'll spend $8 billion over 6 years following the merger (something they would have done anyway as they belatedly deployed LTE) -- more network upgrade aggressive T-Mobile -- based on historical averages -- would have spent around $18 billion in capital investment over that period. In short, AT&T and the CWA are claiming job losses are job gains, and investment reductions are investment increases. Up is down, and black is white. While the Post seems to think that the Obama Administration is hesitant even for a moment in approving the deal, the reality is the deal is getting approved regardless of how loud consumer advocates or union leaders debate. The sad truth (for consumers, anyway) is that consumer advocates simply have no serious financial or political pull in this persistent deregulatory, merger-manic climate, and ignoring them won't have any serious repercussions for an Obama administration that has already waffled on issues ranging from serious neutrality protections to telco immunity for breaking domestic surveillance laws. In fact, AT&T's integral role in domestic surveillance is a huge reason why the deal will be quickly approved with only superficial conditions. But what about the unions? Why are they supporting a merger that would result in less competition, potentially fewer jobs overall, and significant consumer harms including price hikes? Why give more power to a company like AT&T that historically engages in both anti-competitive and anti-union behavior? With waning influence, the unions are essentially willing to sell their soul for a measly 20,000 additional dues-paying members. Public Knowledge's Art Brodsky put it this way in a good piece he wrote back in June: quote: But what's in it for the CWA? Remember that figure that allowing AT&T to buy T-Mobile will give 20,000 employees "a real opportunity" to form a union. What that number doesn't tell you is that T-Mobile in 2009 was named "one of the 100 best companies to work for" by Fortune magazine, the first telecom company to be so included. Avoiding layoffs and having generous child care subsidies were the reasons they were included.More to the point, T-Mobile now has about 40,000 employees. So CWA took half of them right off the top, assuming that their partner, job-killing but unionized AT&T, wouldn't keep them around. The bottom line: for a chance -- just a chance -- to get 20,000 new members, CWA is willing to lead progressive organizations and Democrats into a world in which AT&T and the (nonunion) Verizon Wireless rule the air, creating that almost duopoly, setting up a GSM monopoly, squeezing out smaller players and setting the stage for higher prices, fewer features on phones, and more stringent bandwidth caps.
For whatever reason, the CWA's distortions aren't highlighted by the Post. Most major news outlets also continue to pretend that rejection of the AT&T-T-Mobile deal is even a remote possibility, when in reality we've yet to see the current administration or the current FCC stand up to AT&T on any serious issue. Nobody should expect them to start now. |
Duramax08To The Moon Premium Member join:2008-08-03 San Antonio, TX |
"claiming it will bring high-speed Internet to rural areas&yes, thats what us rural customers want, Heavily capped and expensive internet from the a major wirelesss company. Remember folks, this will be the only internet for us. Putting a low cap of 5-10 GB for $80 a month just wont cut it as you might have a 150, 250 or even no caps on your internet, we would have to ration the shit out of our 5-10 GB cap and overages of $10 per gig. If they were to make affordable plans with higher caps, I wouldnt mind that since its wireless and can only do so much but if they are using this bull "we are going to deploy high-speed internet to rural areas" then do this charge out of the ass scam, no thanks. | |
| | |
Re: "claiming it will bring high-speed Internet to rural arsaid by Duramax08:yes, thats what us rural customers want, Heavily capped and expensive internet from the a major wirelesss company. Remember folks, this will be the only internet for us. Putting a low cap of 5-10 GB for $80 a month just wont cut it as you might have a 150, 250 or even no caps on your internet, we would have to ration the shit out of our 5-10 GB cap and overages of $10 per gig. If they were to make affordable plans with higher caps, I wouldnt mind that since its wireless and can only do so much but if they are using this bull "we are going to deploy high-speed internet to rural areas" then do this charge out of the ass scam, no thanks. Ironically even at this extremely early stage of LTE deployment a German wireless company is already offering 50 GB caps to rural customers: "http://dslprime.com/a-wireless-cloud/61-w/4491-germany-50-gigabytes-of-lte-8995-euro-" It's pricey at 90 euros, but another company is offering 30 GB for 70 euros. No doubt those prices will come down over time as competition drives down margins. Furthermore LTE Advance will easily triple network capacity and speed, so you could easily triple those caps without any network management. And at that level of capacity you might as well offer unlimited with "throttle" during peak periods. | |
| | | |
Srsly
Anon
2011-Jul-14 11:20 am
Re: "claiming it will bring high-speed Internet to rural arWhat is this "competition" you speak of? You mean Verizon and AT&T are going to suddenly forget that as the only two real players in the market, they can do pretty much what they want? Remember when Verizon got the iPhone, and suddenly that was going to make AT&T improve its service and prices? How'd that work out? Both of them imposed caps and raised prices. There's your competition.... | |
|
| |
to Duramax08
CWA and T-MobileCorrect me if I'm wrong, but I don't think T-Mobile workers are represented by a union, but many at AT&T are represented by the CWA. I can't see this merger increasing jobs (does any merger?) but the CWA is saying 100,000. That's a nice even figure. I think the CWA sees this as an opportunity to increase membership by getting T-Mobile in their fold, so they're eager to see this go through. But if in the long run the combined company decreases jobs (which I feel is more likely to happen), the CWA might hurt themselves in the long run. | |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2011-Jul-13 9:17 am
Union leaders are for themselves and not their membersWant to know why union membership is constantly shrinking in the US? One reason(not the only one) is that the union leadership is more about protecting their own high paying jobs and not about looking out for their members. Workers, and not just companies, have seen the bankruptcy of the union movement and have decided that signing up for union membership gets them very little. Why pay membership dues if they can get equivalent or better deals without joining a union. | |
| | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD
1 recommendation |
pnh102
Premium Member
2011-Jul-13 9:22 am
Re: Union leaders are for themselves and not their memberssaid by FFH5:Why pay membership dues if they can get equivalent or better deals without joining a union. Because they will break your legs, burn down your house, and terrorize your children if you don't. Unions = crime and violence. | |
| | | axus join:2001-06-18 Washington, DC |
axus
Member
2011-Jul-13 12:02 pm
Re: Union leaders are for themselves and not their membersYeah maybe in the 1970s? | |
| | | | Robert Premium Member join:2001-08-25 Miami, FL |
Robert
Premium Member
2011-Jul-13 12:07 pm
Re: Union leaders are for themselves and not their memberssaid by axus:Yeah maybe in the 1970s? It happens today. The Union thugs (not the union leaders, but many of their members) go around terrorizing and intimidating others. They have this "I can do no wrong" attitude. | |
| | | | | coldmoon Premium Member join:2002-02-04 Fulton, NY |
coldmoon
Premium Member
2011-Jul-13 12:38 pm
Re: Union leaders are for themselves and not their memberssaid by Robert:said by axus:Yeah maybe in the 1970s? It happens today. The Union thugs (not the union leaders, but many of their members) go around terrorizing and intimidating others. They have this "I can do no wrong" attitude. Not that I am a great Union supporter myself, but your description can also be used to describe the tactics of many company owners and management teams over the years through to today. Don't be so quick to lay the blame entirely on the Unions who may actually be trying (mistakenly) to fight fire with fire... | |
| | | | | | WhatNow Premium Member join:2009-05-06 Charlotte, NC |
WhatNow
Premium Member
2011-Jul-13 6:10 pm
Re: Union leaders are for themselves and not their membersIf companies treat their employees fairly the Union can't get it foot in the door. Telco unions just don't have much leverage today. In the days of lead sheath cables and paper insulated pairs plus pre-digital switches there was a lot of repair demand. Now it can run for weeks if cars or storms don't hit the equipment. The customers keep paying their bills during a strike and the company saves all that money on salaries. I think a lot of companies like a Union so they have someone to blame for bad management decisions. I have seen time after time the Union crew members made an idiot boss look good enough to keep their job. i am in a right to work state so it is optional. | |
|
| | | | JakCrow join:2001-12-06 Palo Alto, CA |
to Robert
said by Robert:said by axus:Yeah maybe in the 1970s? It happens today. The Union thugs (not the union leaders, but many of their members) go around terrorizing and intimidating others. You can back up such a specious claim of course. | |
| | | | | axus join:2001-06-18 Washington, DC |
to Robert
I don't think an old guy holding a sign is very intimidating, even if he looks unhappy | |
|
| | | |
Yea Right to axus
Anon
2011-Jul-13 3:00 pm
to axus
Go tell that to Kenneth Gladney. | |
| | | | | |
OnionThug45
Anon
2011-Jul-14 8:55 am
Kenneth Gladney... Kenneth Glad-he's-not-me!Yeah. Gladney is THE king of all pants-on-fire liars.
He's now going around mutely flashing red-green-red (a la Captain Pike from the Original Star Trek, in his wheelchair/mobility-canister) looking for continued sympathy and free pie. I think I'll go thug him up some by breathing in his direction.
Loos-er! (emphasized with a vibrato falsetto) | |
|
| | JakCrow join:2001-12-06 Palo Alto, CA |
to pnh102
said by pnh102:said by FFH5:Why pay membership dues if they can get equivalent or better deals without joining a union. Because they will break your legs, burn down your house, and terrorize your children if you don't. Unions = crime and violence. What a retarded statement. | |
| | | | woody7 Premium Member join:2000-10-13 Torrance, CA |
woody7
Premium Member
2011-Jul-14 12:47 pm
Re: Union leaders are for themselves and not their membersI was going to say the same thing, but considered the source.................... | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
to FFH5
Once upon a time, unions were for the "little guy." They did a great job in pushing for rational working hours, decent pay and safer conditions on the factory floor. Today they're a corrupt shell of their former selves, interested only in expanding their membership and sucking dues out of unwilling conscripts.
Here in Michigan, we finally got rid of a sleight-of-hand program that confiscated union dues from child care providers. These were mostly home-based carers who accepted payments from the state on behalf of lower income parents. There was a lot of rubbish about the union providing "added value," but that value went straight into the pockets of AFSCME. State employees (and those who provide services on behalf of governments) are a prime target for the unions.
I'd be curious to know how much AT&T paid the CWA for their ringing endorsement. | |
| | |
to FFH5
government sees and union dues. | |
| | |
val1224 to FFH5
Anon
2011-Jul-23 9:38 am
to FFH5
Unions today have become the very thing they were organized to fight against 100 years ago. They are strictly in it for themselves and will achieve their goals by whatever means necessary, the rest of the country/business/members be damned. Those of you who do not believe unions are nothing but thugs apparently are not familiar with some of the current involvements by the SEIU, not just here in the US, but around the globe. And Kenneth Gladney's attack was caught on video - don't know why there are those of you here who say it didn't happen. Unions in America today are, at best inflationary (wonder why you have to pay through the nose for a vehicle???) and at worst terrorists. It's time they go. They've outlived their purpose and have become, instead, a blight. And what really pisses me off are the number of Americans who will vote according to their union instead of voting for what is best for their country and their family. | |
|
moonpuppy (banned) join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD |
moonpuppy (banned)
Member
2011-Jul-13 9:18 am
Stupid unions don't know when they are being playedSeriously, when was the last time a merger created more jobs than it lost? I wonder how much in "union dues" were spent on this fiasco. | |
| | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD
1 recommendation |
pnh102
Premium Member
2011-Jul-13 9:19 am
Re: Stupid unions don't know when they are being playedsaid by moonpuppy:Seriously, when was the last time a merger created more jobs than it lost?
I wonder how much in "union dues" were spent on this fiasco.
This just makes the argument for a right to work law in every state. Nobody should be forced to pay union dues in order to keep a job. And with such a right, unions would be forced to offer some sort of value to their members. | |
| | |
1 recommendation |
armed
Member
2011-Jul-13 11:00 am
Re: Stupid unions don't know when they are being playedNevada has a misnomered "Right to Work Law" and also has the highest unemployment in the nation, the lowest average wage, the lowest level of education, the highest rate of teen pregnacy, the highest percentage of people in prison, and the highest rate of suicide.
Be careful what you wish for. | |
| | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2011-Jul-13 11:11 am
Re: Stupid unions don't know when they are being playedsaid by armed:Nevada has a misnomered "Right to Work Law" and also has the highest unemployment in the nation, the lowest average wage, the lowest level of education, the highest rate of teen pregnacy, the highest percentage of people in prison, and the highest rate of suicide. Because correlation always implies causation. | |
| | | | | N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano Premium Member join:2003-11-11 Philly burbs |
N3OGH
Premium Member
2011-Jul-13 3:17 pm
Re: Stupid unions don't know when they are being playedsaid by pnh102:said by armed:Nevada has a misnomered "Right to Work Law" and also has the highest unemployment in the nation, the lowest average wage, the lowest level of education, the highest rate of teen pregnacy, the highest percentage of people in prison, and the highest rate of suicide. Because correlation always implies causation. "This just makes the argument for a right to work law in every state." Are you making his argument for him before he posted??? | |
| | | | | | WhatNow Premium Member join:2009-05-06 Charlotte, NC
1 recommendation |
WhatNow
Premium Member
2011-Jul-13 6:25 pm
Re: Stupid unions don't know when they are being playedI have worked for both Union in right to work states and non-union companies and will say the Union companies had better management and happier employees. The management tend to bring problems with the Union on themselves. Can not really comment on NE and rust belt states. I have seen how mill town workers were treated in the South. When mill owners found they could get Asian workers to work for nothing they dumped their non-union hard working loyal employees. | |
| | | | | | | N3OGHYo Soy Col. "Bat" Guano Premium Member join:2003-11-11 Philly burbs |
N3OGH
Premium Member
2011-Jul-13 10:16 pm
Re: Stupid unions don't know when they are being playedI find that hard to believe. The "Job Creators" would never do something like that to their loyal employees. | |
| | | | | | | JakCrow join:2001-12-06 Palo Alto, CA
1 recommendation |
to WhatNow
said by WhatNow:I have worked for both Union in right to work states and non-union companies and will say the Union companies had better management and happier employees. The management tend to bring problems with the Union on themselves. Can not really comment on NE and rust belt states. I have seen how mill town workers were treated in the South. When mill owners found they could get Asian workers to work for nothing they dumped their non-union hard working loyal employees. Coal mining companies with non-union workers in the U.S. have killed killed more than 100,000 workers in the last century because those companies have been more interested in faking safety records and ignoring safety standards than keeping their employees safe. For those coal mines with union shops that monitor safety standards, worker deaths and injuries have been dramatically reduced. Since 1996, CWA's leadership has become little more than lapdogs for the telco companies. | |
| | | | | | | |
to WhatNow
AT&T's going to get their way and customers will pay for it in even poorer service (if you can believe it) and artificially-inflated costs for services. When Verizon and Sprint will see what AT&T's getting away with, they'll carbon-copy it and follow suit. They'll take the money and run, and consumers will be the losers.
The leaders of many long-established unions have a difficult time seeing beyond the ends of their collective noses. When their own imprudent decisions result in adverse consequences they point fingers at their favorite scapegoat, government, and/or anyone else who's convenient.
I'm not just some outsider standing back with his arms crossed; I'm a former union member. Our union told us that if we rejected the company's offer and threatened a strike, the company would cave in and we'd get the contract the union leaders recommended. The company pulled up stakes and closed the local office (100+ employees). The union really showed them who was boss! | |
|
| | |
1 recommendation |
to armed
said by armed:Nevada has a misnomered "Right to Work Law" and also has the highest unemployment in the nation, the lowest average wage, the lowest level of education, the highest rate of teen pregnacy, the highest percentage of people in prison, and the highest rate of suicide.
Be careful what you wish for. All of those things are obviously because of a right to work law. That's pretty damn funny right there. | |
| | | | |
1 recommendation |
armed
Member
2011-Jul-13 1:32 pm
Re: Stupid unions don't know when they are being playedsaid by footballdude:said by armed:Nevada has a misnomered "Right to Work Law" and also has the highest unemployment in the nation, the lowest average wage, the lowest level of education, the highest rate of teen pregnancy, the highest percentage of people in prison, and the highest rate of suicide.
Be careful what you wish for. All of those things are obviously because of a right to work law. That's pretty damn funny right there. Well if you think low wages and high unemployment are not related to low education levels and poor health and crime then you are a tool. "Right to Work" (the biggest lie in law) does not only lower union participation but by doing so frees employers to under pay and mistreat its workers thus driving educated and high skilled workers to other areas. But Right to Work laws also establish a litany of anti employee laws that have nothing to do with union participation. Therefore Right to Work laws are not the sole reason but its a good part of the equation that brought about (and continues) Nevada's terrible economic and social status. It establishes among other things an anti employee climate that is good for the businesses that employ low skilled workers but is terrible for the workers. Educated and skilled employees don't like working for employers that underpay in a climate that gives absolutely no protection to the worker. That's exactly what Right To Work Laws do. Lastly Right to Work laws help establish an ugly climate for employers that are on the cutting edge and demand good educational systems, safe place to live and have a social system that is vibrant and supportive. The political climate that allows these types of laws to flourish are good for whore house owners and bad for twenty first century employers. Now why don't you explain what "Right to Work" laws really are and how they help in establishing a strong economic and social climate in a state that has them? | |
| | | | | | r81984Fair and Balanced Premium Member join:2001-11-14 Katy, TX |
r81984
Premium Member
2011-Jul-13 1:59 pm
Re: Stupid unions don't know when they are being playedThis is all a right to work law needs to say "a person cannot be denied employment because of membership or non-membership in a labor union or other labor organization. You may not be required to join or pay dues to a union as a condition of employment, nor may you be denied employment because you have joined a union." Anything else is just politics.
Some dickhead republicans try to call "making unions illegal" right to work, but that is BS. Unionizing or not join should be 100% up to the employee and they should not be penalized for either decision. | |
| | | | | | |
to armed
said by armed:Now why don't you explain what "Right to Work" laws really are and how they help in establishing a strong economic and social climate in a state that has them? I'll make this really simple. My wife works in a pharmacy. The pharmacy is in a grocery store. Every employee of the grocery is required to join the union. If a right to work law was active in Missouri (and it looks like there will be one on the ballot soon), my wife would leave the union and those dues would be in her pocket instead of some union boss. The union does nothing for her. She makes the same amount in this union shop that she did in two previous non-union pharmacies. All they are doing is sucking money out of her paycheck and giving her nothing in return. America is supposed to be the land of freedom and liberty. Forcing someone to join a union is contrary to those ideals. The way I see it, it's no different than when companies forced employees to buy from the company store as a condition of employment. | |
| | | | | | | ••••••
| | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2 Zoom 5341J
1 recommendation |
KrK to armed
Premium Member
2011-Jul-13 12:28 pm
to armed
Right to work is used to allow employees to be screwed over and fired for BS reasons and to have little or no recourse.
One day Unions will make a comeback because the pendulum has swung all the way over to Corporations & Money and workers be damned. | |
| | | | | •••••••••••••••••••• | | | | r81984Fair and Balanced Premium Member join:2001-11-14 Katy, TX |
to armed
said by armed:Nevada has a misnomered "Right to Work Law" and also has the highest unemployment in the nation, the lowest average wage, the lowest level of education, the highest rate of teen pregnacy, the highest percentage of people in prison, and the highest rate of suicide.
Be careful what you wish for. Texas is a right to work state and that is where all the jobs are. Texas's law is what every state should have, you leave it 100% up to the employees if they want to join a union and if they do not they do not have to pay any dues or fees. In my experience with a world wide company that has some union and non union shops, the union shops actually agree to a worse deal for employees than the non union shops. The union shops make less money. The only benefit they get is they can miss many more days and you can't fire them for being stupid. The union shops have very poor attendance records which is very bad for business. Unions are only interested in collecting dues not for fighting for employees. They stop companies from firing people only because they want the dues from that person. | |
| | | | | •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• | | | | Metatron2008You're it Premium Member join:2008-09-02 united state |
to armed
said by armed:Nevada has a misnomered "Right to Work Law" and also has the highest unemployment in the nation, the lowest average wage, the lowest level of education, the highest rate of teen pregnacy, the highest percentage of people in prison, and the highest rate of suicide.
Be careful what you wish for. All of that CAN'T BE due to: Legalized prostitution Legalized gambling People can easily get sex, throw all of their money away, but no, it's all a right to work clause The stupidity, it's killing me | |
| | | | | |
armed
Member
2011-Jul-14 1:42 am
Re: Stupid unions don't know when they are being playedStupidity is killing you because you can't read and comprehend at the same time. Don't blame that on me. | |
|
| JakCrow join:2001-12-06 Palo Alto, CA 1 edit
1 recommendation |
to moonpuppy
I love all the "my mom was a teacher!", "my friends were in unions!". It's almost like those "my best friend is a (insert subject excuse here in an attempt to deflect attention from my personal bias)". I love the idiot that said unions were synonymous with crime and violence while corporations that abuse their employees have been responsible for more worker injuries and deaths than anything unions in at the -turn of the 20th century-. | |
|
TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus join:2001-06-20 Cheyenne, WY 1 edit
1 recommendation |
Joined at the HipJust goes to show you Union leadership could care less about its membership their only interest is in political power. If they where really supporting the people they are giving lip service to they would be fighting tooth and nail against one job being lost. Right now it wouldn't matter who the Democrat is or what that Democrat had done they would support that person over a Republican. This is a fundamental with Present Labor Unions. They always point out what they did in the past. 40 hour work week, days off, work rules, etc. This is fine but that was done in the 1930's through the early 1950's. I want to know what the leadership of the Unions have they done for their membership in the last 30 years or so, besides using their retirement funds and union dues as a giant slush fund for maintaining their political power. | |
|
1 recommendation |
Sounds like Obama economics!Obama is in the hands of unions, what did you expect? | |
| | •••••••••• | |
joey_menga
Anon
2011-Jul-13 9:44 am
...Whenever I feel like being sad and depressed, I always go to broadband reports. This site never disappoints. | |
| | |
Re: ...Hahaha! You sure got that right. | |
|
BHNtechXpertThe One & Only Premium Member join:2006-02-16 Saint Petersburg, FL |
This should be a HUGE warning sign to everyone!Unions embody much of what is wrong with America today financially. You can also thank them for much of the outsourcing that we now see. If unions are happy with this merger run don't walk away from it and make damn sure your representative knows how you feel. This deal gets worse and worse by the day. | |
| | ••••••••••••• | |
Mr Matt
Member
2011-Jul-13 10:23 am
Typical special interest doublespeak. As usual the CWA management does not disclose that they do not represent T-Mobile employees at this time but T-Mobile craft employees in non right to work states will be forced to join the union and pay significant union dues if the merger is allowed. In right to work states if transferred T-Mobile do not join the union they will simply have their cars vandalizes and if the rank and file vandals are caught the ex T-Mobile employee will not be allowed to press charges by AT&T lest they loose their job. This actually happened during a CWA strike against AT&T. | |
| |
tmc8080
Member
2011-Jul-13 10:45 am
big corporation, big unionhalf of the cwa is at&t, the other half verizon. it's not surprising unions are for putting more worker's paychecks in the pocket of the cwa. however, that does not give them much more job security than before. there's always consolidation so last in, first out when AT&T finally crunches the numbers and sees a t-mobile store right across the street from an at&t store, or regional t-mobile offices too overlapped with at&t offices. guess which gets cut?
there are more than 100,000 reasons to be against the merger! higher prices and reduced competition are just two of the most glaring anti-consumer problems created. another big one is AT&T and Verizon white collar spokepeople have already said that their company policy will be to raise prices to fund 4g expansion in sort of an arms race with one significant side effect... to SHUT DOWN any significant competition for 4g/lte network dominance.
The losers? You the consumer, but also, every other wireless carrier: sprint, metro pcs, lightsquared, leap/cricket, clearwire, etc.
To blame the unions for the higher prices is really looking through rose colored glasses. Good paying jobs should be a good thing, EXCEPT when it's used as a monopoly/duopoly tool to do an end-run around anti-trust regulations. | |
| |
CWA has been after Tmobile for awhile.Since they weren't union in the first place cwa won't be losing any of their members.
I hate cwa. Its the worst union I have ever been a part of. | |
| |
same old thingUnions and regulation always sound really good until you look at then up close then you see what they really are. I know the libertarians say govt is bad period but this merger has to be stopped. I guess in the libertarian scheme of things T mobile will eventually be put out of biz by att so might as well let big fish eat little one. Again Libertarians feel that there should not be any control of biz what so ever by govt. Really sad what has happened to the USA since 1980.
I think ATT learned from the politicos that if you say something enough times in the media and put it in the form of a cute little book you can waive around then it just "becomes" true.
Since the pres of ATT is a millionaire he deserve a big (personal) tax break as according to "Rebilicorp" he is not a millionaire but a "job creator" | |
| |
The administration...will go the way of whoever slips enough money to the right pockets. I'm surprised the unions are in favor - they know full well that thousands of jobs will be lost in the merger, and these jobs will never be regained. I thought unions were supposed to help workers?
The takeover of T-Mobile by AT&T is a done deal - they have paid enough politicians to approve it. The only question is will T-mobile even be around after the "merger" (takeover)? Or will T-Mobile quietly go down the drain? | |
| | |
AnonName
Anon
2011-Jul-13 12:23 pm
Re: The administration...They were probably "paid" by AT&T to back the merger. | |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK |
KrK
Premium Member
2011-Jul-13 12:41 pm
I'm sure AT&T is feeling them a line of bull about new jobs... and a massive build-out in rural areas if this is approved, etc etc.
They are fools to believe that. | |
| |
unions need to go awaythey destroyed the manufacturing industry in michigan and with it, the economy. they care about nothing except padding their wallets. | |
| | •••• | |
THE 86d
Anon
2011-Jul-13 2:38 pm
No CompetitionOkay the 2 providers that offer Simultaneous Voice/Data are going to be one. What option does that leave us with? VZW prices, Sprint Service, or AT&T's monopoly on Simultaneous data and Voice? Going to be a hard call when AT&T is the ONLY one to do this in non-4g areas... | |
| RJ44 join:2001-10-19 Nashville, TN |
RJ44
Member
2011-Jul-13 6:08 pm
Responsible reporting protocolnews /nuz, nyuz/ Show Spelled [nooz, nyooz] Show IPA
noun ( usually used with a singular verb ) 1. a report of a recent event; intelligence; information: His family has had no news of his whereabouts for months. 2. the presentation of a report on recent or new events in a newspaper or other periodical or on radio or television. 3. such reports taken collectively; information reported: There's good news tonight.
ed·i·to·ri·al /dtril, -tor-/ Show Spelled [ed-i-tawr-ee-uhl, -tohr-] Show IPA
noun 1. an article in a newspaper or other periodical presenting the opinion of the publisher, editor, or editors. 2. a statement broadcast on radio or television that presents the opinion of the owner, manager, or the like, of the station or channel. 3. something regarded as resembling such an article or statement, as a lengthy, dogmatic utterance.
There *is* a difference, not that you'd know it from reading this. | |
| batterupI Can Not Tell A Lie. Premium Member join:2003-02-06 Netcong, NJ |
batterup
Premium Member
2011-Jul-14 1:00 am
You?You= a pimply faced virgin that lives in his mother's basement and thinks this supposed forum has your interests in mind. This supposed forum is a cabal of leeches that suck the life's blood from those that do. | |
| |
t3ln3t
Anon
2011-Jul-14 11:07 am
unions and at&t are a freakin' joke!Union leadership is boldly telling a whopper here. Look at the past mergers at&t/SBC has undertaken, over the last, oh ... 10 years or so. Go back and look at SBC's "merger" with Pacific Telesis. It didn't add jobs, it didn't even bolster competition. Then look at SBC's "merger" with SNET, where were jobs added? Okay, now, let's look at SBC's "merger" with Ameritech. No new jobs!
In each case, the company buying the other company, eliminated jobs, where overlap occurs. That's not creating new jobs! That's eliminating jobs!!
Once upon a time, the unions were badly needed in America. They did what was needed, but I strongly feel they have outlived their purpose. If you have a crap boss that hates you, quit and go get another job. You don't need a union to argue on your behalf, in the grievance process.
I'm not surprised unions are favoring this though. They've wanted to get hooks into T-Mobile for a while now. Similarly, CWA wants to expand into IT, and they have for many years now. | |
| xrobertcmx Premium Member join:2001-06-18 White Plains, MD |
So Long T-MoI know a few Folks who work/ed at T-Mobile and cuts are already coming down, although they aren't called cuts. Headcounts are dropping in response to subscriber loss and lack of new signups. What they are doing right now is setting unrealistic goals and just eliminating anyone who doesn't meet them usually within two weeks. | |
| |
Union thugsAs usual, as in the case with teachers' unions, this union is looking out for nobody but itself. And the best interests of the consumer be damned. | |
|
| |
|
|