dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
AT&T Cutting 12,000 Jobs
Four percent of their work force...
by Karl Bode 09:39AM Thursday Dec 04 2008 Tipped by ptrowski See Profile
Confirming what many managers were privately worried about back in October, AT&T today announced that the telco will be eliminating 12,000 jobs, or about four percent of the telcom giant's work force. According to an AT&T statement, the layoffs are a result of economic pressures, a changing business mix, and a more streamlined organizational structure. That's code for the economy sucks, the credit market sucks, their landline business is dying, new DSL subscriber additions are dismal, and they continue to purge redundant positions created by the BellSouth merger.

According to the telco, they'll be reducing their 2009 capital expenditure levels:
quote:
In response to these business and economic factors, AT&T plans to reduce its 2009 capital expenditures from 2008 levels. Capital plans for 2009 are being finalized now and specific guidance will be provided when the company releases its fourth quarter results in late January.
Whether that slows the deployment speed for U-Verse remains to be seen. AT&T announced 4,500 job cuts back in April as well, many related to their dying landline business. The telco insists they continue to add jobs in their wireless and video business units.

In their statement, AT&T notes that many non-management employees affected by these reductions have a guaranteed job offer under union contracts, while all employees will receive severance "in accordance with management policies or union agreements."


120 comments .. click to read

Recommended comments




Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

4 edits

2 recommendations

reply to jc10098

Re: And in a year they'll be wishing they hadn't

Hospitals and roads aren't "socialism" by any stretch of the imagination (unless you found out about a universal heathcare program we don't know about or don't have to pay car registration or license fees). As for the red scare, you obviously have no clue what you're talking about. It was Kennedy that got us into Vietnam and in typical gov't fashion, politicians tried to run the war instead of letting the military do it. It's the same mess that prolonged the Iraq war...politics and poll-taking

Oliver North? You mean the guy Reagan FIRED? And you're the one in need of an education. He wasn't convicted for selling arms to Iran. He was convicted of accepting an illegal gratuity, destruction of documents and obstruction of a congressional inquiry and in 1990 all of those convictions were VACATED. Much like Martha Stewart, North wasn't busted for ANYTHING the Congress was trying to bust him for. He got temporarily busted for what he did during the Democrat run witch-hunt. It's the same which-hunt bullcrap that Republicans did to Clinton...busted him for perjury, not anything he actually did outside the courtroom.

Yep, I'm going to get my "facts" from "American War" instead of actual history. Of course you ignore 50 years of CIA involvement in this and act as if the CIA did it just this one time under direct instruction from Reagan. What a joke.

What to you think propelled the 1980's arms race genius? It was STAR WARS, and obviously you don't even know what Star Wars was. SDI was more than space based weapons. It was KE weapons, advanced missile launch detection systems, ABMs...it was a comprehensive program designed to make the increasing accurate Soviet heavy ballistic missiles obsolete and a lot of these programs are in use today under the BMDO. Without ballistic missiles and the survivability of the (at the time) new LGM-118A (MX) missiles, the Soviets were sunk so they spent and spent and spent on increasing their military capabilities through conventional as well as nuclear means in hopes of overwhelming SDI to hit Minuteman III and MX sites and it broke their backs.

Don't believe it? What went on in the late 1980's is EXACTLY what is going on now. The US is deploying minimal ballistic missile defenses in Europe and the Russians are spending a TON of cash to insure they can overwhelm it. SDI at maturity would have been BMD x 1000 and Gorbachev KNEW he didn't have the money to counter this. Their social infrastructure continued to collapse because of military spending in the face of SDI. So he for all intents and purposes surrendered and SDI was subsequently scaled back during the 1990's to the BMDO we see today.

Yeah, let's lay all the blame for Congressional spending on Reagan and let Congress off scott free.

As for Clinton...for the first two years with Clinton and a democratic congress, the budget was a disaster. Only after the Democrats got their asses kicked in 1994 and Republicans actually controlled both houses of Congress did the budget come under control. It's very convenient of you to forget about the "government shut downs" because Clinton wanted to spend a ton of money and Gingrich and the Republicans were saying no. Clinton and the liberal media demonized Gingrich for not wanting to blow up gov't with tons of new and expanding socialist programs. Convenient you forget about how libs said Gingrich wanted to starve children because he cut the increase in the school lunch programs...no didn't cut, just a cut in the increase. It was only when Republicans turned into raving socialist Democrats in 2000 that crap turned upside-down.

But thanks for your fiction, it was an interesting fairy-tale.

neil0311

join:2005-07-24
Marietta, GA

2 recommendations

reply to jc10098
said by jc10098:

Actually, Regan ran things in 1982. Wikipedia isn't a source. Regan took office in 1982 and if you so look at bls.gov, it goes to show that Reganomics were a failure, and all years under Regan saw MASSIVE unemployment.
HUH? This isn't a political forum, but I can tell you that I was a voting, tax paying, college student and working adult during Reagan's two terms, and you have no clue what you're talking about. By your own admission you were a baby.

Volker was cleaning up Carter's mess by raising interest rates...the result was unemployment. The Reagan tax cuts passed in 1981 were key to bringing the economy back, and it expanded until the next recession in 1991-2. The 80's were a pretty good time.


Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

2 recommendations

reply to jc10098
You ignore what was going on those first two years. Reagan faced an uphill battle against the Democratic controlled Congress getting our tax code changed...about 2 years (late into 1981). And of course it took another year or so for those changes to fix the Carter disaster.

You should probably actually learn the whole story instead of picking some selective numbers to copy and paste.

Google is your friend, specifically the ERTA.


footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO

2 recommendations

reply to jc10098
said by jc10098:

Reganomics sucked. Star wars, and his whole plan was a failure. Carter is not to blame for this one.
As someone that wasn't a baby in 1982 and lived through the times in question, I can tell you that you don't have a clue. The nation SUFFERED under Ford and Carter and recovered greatly under Reagan. It wasn't until George Bush the elder foolishly raised taxes that we started draining the economy again.
--
It's a trick. Get an axe. - Ash


Alpine
Premium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA

2 recommendations

reply to jc10098
Wow... Can't remember the last time someone actually defended the Carter administration. There's a reason for that.