Slashdot Mirror
SBC CWA Strike Imminent
Tmack writes "SBC union workers are preparing (again) to strike after negotiations have broken down between CWA and SBC. What this means to the average person? As long as the strike is taking place, orders for new service and repair of existing services with SBC will be delayed as only non-union workers and temps will be around to complete the work. Latest word is the strike is now planned for Friday night through next Tuesday. Check here(1),
here(2), and here(3)
for more info."
I can't be the only person here who has no idea what this is about...
Things would be much worse off if it weren't for organized labor.
IANA Economics Major
Isn't this a little localized of a topic to be posted on Slashdot? I mean we have strikes here in New York all the time and I don't see it making the front page. I mean even if it affects 13 states that is not that much in the grand scale of things. Con-Ed goes on strike and it might only affect one state but that includes around 8-10 million people.
Someone could at least explain if this will have an effect on us.
Amazing how their practices are fully legalized. If I were to tell a company:
"Joe won't be coming in to work and you can't fire him nor can you hire a temporary replacement for him. If you want Joe to work again, you must cough up some money."
I'd be arrested and charged with extortion. It has always baffled me that this kind of behavior is actually legally sanctioned.
2) exacly why is this news? just because it's in the US? (not sure, just assuming).
People do live outside the US, you know.
I heard my dad make some mention of this a few days ago. Of course, this doesn't surprise me. My father spoke of SBC cutting retirement benefits in the future just to get people to retire early before the lower benefits took place.
He also spoke of his animosity towards SBC because of their push for Technicians to get more jobs completed in less time. Thus, you get people doing a job and meeting the most basic requirements to complete the job, so they end up closing out the job quickly.
My dad has a wall of Customer Service awards, but his managers would always complain about his inability to close jobs out quickly. My dad always told them he'd much rather take his time and make sure the customer is happy than do a barely-done job with a disgruntled customer.
Oh well, it doesn't matter now. The older generation of Technicians who actually care about the customer are retiring while newer non-union/contractors fill the slots
Even my dad doesn't have SBC for his phones anymore, even with the retiree discount
Hello. You must be American :)
:)
You people all (most) seem to not like unions. Why? Over here (Europe), they make sure we get the wages we deserve and don't get fired for stupid things like if the boss doesn't like you or whatever. I've never heard of any unreasonable strikes... Have you been indoctrinated from birth or do you have any real reasons to dislike unions?
Don't worry, people will be there to take your money. They'd never let those workers strike, it's bad for business.
You might not get service durring that time, but they'll gladly take your money.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
Yes. But if you believe in the concept of a 40 hour work week being a fair thing that we all deserve, then you can thank unions for that. Otherwise you'd be working 60-80 hours a week and getting paid for 24 hours a week. Can there be too much of a good thing? Yes. But, I'd far rather have unions around than not. Besides, it's not the unions that are the problem. It the corruption within the unions, just as there is corruption within managment. The bad guys in management want you to work for as little as possible. The bad guys in the union want you to pay your dues even if you don't believe in the union. You're getting fucked from behind by managment and raped in the mouth by the union. Of course that's greatly oversimplified. Unions still do more good than harm and I side with the Union even though I happen to be management where I work.
Who is Twirlip of the Mists?
Historically, most, if not all, of the benefits that all employees are guaranteed by law were first instituted thanks to labor unions. Clearly, they have served their purpose in the past.
Now, you are right, there are unions that do more harm than good. They impose requirements to create meaningless jobs instead of letting companies become more efficient (and thereby creating new useful jobs or having more money for raises).
On the other hand, there are unions that are vital for protecting the employees. My wife is a teacher, and I've see how private non-unionized schools have taken advantage of her. Everything from expecting her to contribute financially to school fundraisers to attending a week-long out-of-state field trip (with no extra pay or provision in her contract). Of course, teachers are generally there because that's what they want to do, not for the money, which puts them in a prime position to be taken advantage of without a union to look out for their interests. (Of course, I have gripes with the political activities of teachers' unions, but that's another story.)
It seems according to the message on-air, SBC (SouthwesternBell Communications) has been commanding ever-growing profits at a non-stop rate for the past 10+ years if I recall correctly and yet SBC has been cutting employee benefits and threatening to lower salaries while top executives find more ways to increase their salaries and bonuses.
They [SBC] don't have the excuse of failing profit margins or losses. They are just greedy. If the shareholders out there would vote their minds, they'd probably change out those in control... but then again, they're probably one in the same.
The day that I accepted the new job, I got a phone call from my old shop. The union went to management and strong-armed them into restoring a lot of jobs in income-producing areas, including mine. I could have my old position back provided that I came to work the next day. I immediately accepted my old position, and called the new shop to let them know what happened and that I would be returning to my old job.
Good thing I did, too. Within six months of my returning to my old job, the new shop circulated a petition amoung the workers to get rid of the union. As soon as the union was gone, they moved all the first-tier tech support positions to India.
Lesson learned. Unions mean job security. No unions mean you take your chances.
Finding God in a Dog
What a crock, i have working in a union environment before, and never will again, I have too good of a work ethic and end up carrying my fellow "workers" because they want to sleep or have a beer or 20.
Unions should be banned.
We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully "designed" to have come into existence by chance.
Yeah, like I said above... I personally feel that the Union has outlived it's usefulness.. SBC pretty much gave them most of the major things they wanted. The two main sticking points are: 1: Medical Copays.. currently the Union guys don't have to pay any medical premiums, and a small copay for each visit. SBC will still pay their premiums, but raise the copays a bit.. but that's still way the hell better than the "Management" employees get. 2: Job Security.. SBC is offering any Union member a job in the same state that they currently work in if their job is "surplused". I think that 100% of people wish they had any job security, let alone that kind. If anybody cares to read SBC's side of things, read www.sbcupdate.com . It will tell SBC's side of things. Now I'm off to frickin' Detroit to run phone lines for 12 hours a day, 7 days a week.. thanks Union.
Yeah.
I always like how most Unions claim to be supporting the 'little guys'. Except that support ends when someone wants to work without joining the union or accepting exhorbitant pay and benifits, then the Union says "How dare you hire anyone thats not a member of our union!" and fights to have non-unionists removed.
I'd be more supportive of unions (I'm not bashing all unions, just ones that do the things I mention) if they actually supported all workers, regardless of their membership status, didn't strike to get above-average pay and benefits, and striked only to protest true unfairness and unfair practices to support worker's rights.
...fewer failures. When the line workers go out on strike, nothing breaks. Studies show that almost all telco failures are a result of installations or configuration changes.
think of it as the union 'maximizing shareholder value' .... it's just that its shareholders are its members
Anyhow, we have our own fiber network, our own switchng equipment, and we are responsible for our own order processing, repairs, service changes, etc. Basically we rely on SBC for what is termed the "last mile", or the cable that leaves from either a COLO (colococation office) or CO (central office) and leads right up to the building being serviced. This also includes the pedestals and other line structures used to pass service along.
We rely on SBC to make repairs to aerial or buried drops and for basic installation. How it works is we send SBC an order saying "Hey, this person wants our service. Hook them up." SBC then gives us the line from their switch and ensures that the line leading from the pedestal or segmentation equipment is dropped off at the NID (Network Interface Device). We then complete the order by doing the necessary routing, NPAC (Number Portability), hooking up the inside wiring, and ensuring service is delivered properly. As you can imagine, while we don't overly rely on SBC's equipment we are very dependent on their service. This strike will make an already long installation process even longer and perhaps delay repairs to infrastructure. While this strike seems to only affect SBC and their customers on the surface, this could have potentially damaging effects on our service as well by delaying key steps in the installation and repair sectors.
SBC has always been a little underhanded when it has come to playing fair, ie giving our customers lines that they knew were of less than stellar quality, delaying the install process when they can get away with it, charging us for doing a "no trouble found" dispatch where the problem "mysteriously" diappears so as to cause an unnecessary dispatch chargeback to appear, etc. We try and get along, but it is not always that easy. We've had issues with their technicians disparaging our service as well, trying to get a "winback" so as to regain their previous customers' service. In fact, we keep a database of all the things that SBC has done to try and undermine our service so we can have an accurate record to present to the PSC (Public Service Commission). You'd be amazed at what SBC tries to do to steal back their customers. Thankfully we do provide cheaper service and better customer care IMHO.
While I understand why the CWA is striking I hope the issue is solved soon. Otherwise it is going to cause our little company a lot of headaches in the long run. While we may not always get along, we are really dependent on SBC to get service and maintanance schedules completed properly and on time.
"This food is problematic."
The nice thing about unions is that they mean job security, and protection from overzealous greedy companies. They give the workers a voice and strength against getting screwed by a few rich bastards.
The bad thing about unions is they mean you don't have to work hard to keep a job, even at a generous, well managed company. They give workers a lever to use against management to get what they want even if it means screwing a management who's actually doing a decent job.
Sounds like the same union huh?
Unions themselves aren't inherently evil, but they are easily abused these days. I'd rather have lazy stupid people wandering around happy they have a job than lazy stupid people screaming with picket signs and complaining to me that they have no job and they have the right to break into my house and steal my things because society sucks. I believe in that social safety net and all.
However, tighting up a few rules and introducing some healthy competition into unions would be a stellar idea. How about requiring that companies have more than one union for the same workers?! The union that performs better gets better bonuses from the company. How about restricting some of the practices with unions, like making strikes illegal for more important service companies like SBC, where service is crucial.
But of course, evil unions have lobbies, and would never allow that to happen.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Almost all workers in the US have the right to quit their job if they don't like the conditions. Unions were formed by people saying "Unless you start collective barganing with this here union we formed, we all quit." You decided that you'd rather deal with the union than to find all new workers. All contracts you signed say you will continue to work with the union rather than replace all your workers at one time. In other words, you signed a contact. Capitalitic enough for you?
The definition of capitalism would more likely say that if workers aren't satisfied with their wages and think they're being shafted by management, they can all go and start up their own competing business and offer better service and pay their workers higher wages.
It also has a few things to say about:
Safety conditions - brought to you by unions
Hour limits and overtime pay - brought to you by unions
Minimum wage - brought to you by unions
loyal workers & customers - brought to you by happy workers that happen to belong to a union.
Which isn't to say that some unions can't be nuts, but in this case I think CWA has a few points. Like share the wealth we made for you with the people that made it happen. Still, SBC doesn't have to deal with the union if it doesn't want to. Just replace all those workers all at once.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
In most union shops, striking is a valid work activity - firing a worker for participating in a strike is just short of being illegal (it may actually be, in some places).
Remember the air traffic controllers strike in the 80's? The only way those guys got of the picket line was through an Executive Order from Pres. Ronnie Raygun - basically, he fired them all and replaced them with people who do the damn job.
...and you run and you run and you can't stop what's been done...
Which is all great, except who are SBA, CWA or Verizon? If they go on strike, what changes?
.org" site?
I seriously have no idea. Whenever I see Verizon, I think it's Verisign.
All the Slashdot blurb tells me is that SBC provide a service and repair existing services. That service could be mobile dog-washing for all the explaining done.
The first article tells me that CWA is Communications Workers of America. The second suggests that a telephone company is involved, and the third is fluff.
So people might experience delays with getting a new phone service or repairing an existing one, but can still make calls, and this is frontdoor news on an "international
I've had news submissions about students discovering critical flaws in wireless technology get rejected while something like this gets through? Hmm.
'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
As long as they kept paying him, then they were in fact accepting the modification he made of said arrangemnet to only provide service with no quality.
There is the policy a company states they wish to follow, and there is the policy a companies staff actually implements - these are usually different. A persons job is what they can do and convince the company to pay them for. It's up to the company to hire people that will try to do things beneficial for the company instead of draining from the company. Companies also have the choice to spend less attention to good hiring and more attention to monitoring for enforcement of a centralized policy - but it's more cost effective to find good people that require less monitoring.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley