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."

Comments

Who? What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't be the only person here who has no idea what this is about...

Say what you will...

[gumpish]

Things would be much worse off if it weren't for organized labor.

IANA Economics Major

A little locale

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:A little locale

[gr8_phk]

Slashdot is a Michigan web site (or started that way) so why are all you other people reading it? Sure, it's grown up now but apparently they forget that sometimes. SBC is the big phone company around here, but I couldn't tell you what that W--whatever thing is they mentioned.

I have a friend who works there, and she has had to learn how to solder among other things that may need to be done in the field. I wouldn't change anything relating to my service during the strike. Imagine an army of PHBs pulling wire pairs out of equipment and putting them into wall sockets or some such.... All the management had to take crash courses in how to do various things that they'd have to take over in case of a strike. I suspect the longer the strike lasts, the more they will realize how much the company depends on those people.

Gotta love the unions

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

So what?

[JustKidding]

1) you might try explaining what SBC and CWA are for those who don't know, and

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.

opinion of SBC from a retiree

[grag]

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

Re:opinion of SBC from a retiree

[kaladorn]

Don't take this the wrong way, but your Dad might have been a bit confused about his job. He obviously thought it was to satisfy customers. In truth, it was to satisfy the people paying his paycheck. The customer has an indirect relationship to that, at best. If the company's management wants a tech to do a quick-n-dirty job, it is THEM that have to worry about the repercussions and it is THEIR place to make that call. It is not the technician's place to decide what service level a customer is to be offered - that's a policy issue. The only decision they have to make is are they willing to deliver that service or do they have some objection great enough to cause them to part ways with the company.... I'm not advocating crappy service, but I am advocating management not being second guessed. If management advocates a particular approach to a problem (budget or time-on-task ahead of total and complete quality of end result), then that is their choice and that's the kind of decision they are there to make. In theory, they are accountable for those decisions and have to live with the consequences.

Re:unions Suck!

[kunudo]

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? :)

I heard a radio commercial about this problem

[erroneus]

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.

You can say that again

[MAXOMENOS]

A year and some change ago, I got laid off from my job at a union shop as a systems analyst. Budget cuts. Two weeks later I landed a lower-paying (in fact, half the salary) job in first-tier tech support, with the potential to move into UNIX programming after a year or more. The new shop, as it turns out, was also a union shop.

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.

Re:You can say that again

[BigGerman]

>>Unions mean job security. No unions mean you take your chances.

Unions also mean you are paid the same as the idiot in the next cube but less than idiot who is two years senior.
I will take my chances, thank you.

Re:You can say that again

[joggle]

From a simple economic standpoint, unions are labor monopolies and have an identical effect as corporate monopolies. By strong-arming the labor pool, you can artificially jack up prices (in this case, income). That's great for members of the monopoly (the union members), but not so great for the corporation(s) relying on the union nor consumers.

My first job was baging groceries part time in high school. When I moved to Colorado I tried to get a similar job at a local Safeway. Even though the checkout lines were easily 3-4 times longer than the ones at my old store, they wouldn't hire me. I found out that it was mostly because of the union there (which explained why the checkers/bagers were so old). Why on earth should people have a stable, relatively high-paying job baging groceries? It just causes consumer frustration, raises costs for the company and reduces income by providing worse service than non-union competitors. IMO, monopolies should be avoided if at all possible, and in those exceptions be government regulated to keep prices under control.

Re:You can say that again

[buss_error]

Unions also mean you are paid the same as the idiot in the next cube but less than idiot who is two years senior.
I will take my chances, thank you.

The second management thinks your job can go to India, it doesn't matter how smart you are. Your ass is in the unemployment line.

You may get paid the same as the idiot in the next cube (who thinks you are the idiot most of the time) but at least you get to keep your job. I simply do not understand the brainwashing that goes on about unions. Sure, there are bad ones, but quite a few are allright, and some are even very good. Not to say that a union can't be stupid, but let's face it: SBC's profits are sky high, and still they want to screw over the workers. The question is, would you rather have a job where you are paid the same as the idiot in the next cube, pulling down a living wage, or do you want to learn how to say "You want fries with that"?

Your choice. Choose wisely.

Ahh another reason to ban..err love UNIONS

[Soothh]

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.

I'm one of the guys that gets to fill in...

[Shuasha]

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.

Re:I'm one of the guys that gets to fill in...

[Warlok]

I personally feel that the Union has outlived it's usefulness

Amen, brother. What a strike means is that union employees (is SBC a closed-shop?) will get better benefits or better pay or subsidized jobs for life, paid for by the company who's got bullied into acquiesence. In order to maintain a profitable bottom line (let's be honest - companies that don't make money for their investors don't survive long, and making money by providing goods and/or services is what running a company is all about), the company will have to pick up the slack somewhere else, either by cutting other non-union jobs, cutting pay or benefits to non-union workers, or raising prices.

Cutting jobs or cutting pay results in fewer employees, meaning fewer taxpayers and more unemployment, creating more of a burden on government to pick up the slack. It also means more work for the union employees, who get extra pay for work over and above 40 hours a week, meaning less money for the company to invest in new products, meaning more cuts, and so on.

Raising prices has a similar circular effect - less people can now afford to buy your product, or you sell less, which means you need fewer workers to handle the load, which leads to layoffs (only non-union people, please - the union guys have a contract!), and you're back to the first example.

The one good thing that may come from this - if people can't buy SBS products due to poor service or high prices, they'll go to a competitor who, in order to stay competitive, doesn't have union-mandated minimum pay, job security, or benefits. SBC goes out of business, the new company flourishes, and the union guys can talk about the glory days, lament the loss of their guaranteed jobs, and listen to Billy Joel's "Allentown" around the watering hole.

Hey, a guy can dream, can't he?

Re:I'm one of the guys that gets to fill in...

[pabl0]

I largely agree with your statements -- except the last one...

Now I'm off to frickin' Detroit to run phone lines for 12 hours a day, 7 days a week.. thanks Union.

Don't "thank" the union. The union did not mandate 12x7 shifts. SBC did that. SBC could have hired a larger number of contractors or offered volunteer overtime or any number of other solutions to keep operations moving in the event of a strike. They chose instead to mandate 12x7 shifts for every non-bargained employee and to recall those employees from their vacations. CWA had no hand in that decision.

Not only that, but the initial communications indicated that SBC would not be offering overtime pay for salaried managers who were required to work hourly union positions. Nice of SBC to pass the cost of the strike along to the folks who are still at work keeping the company running.

That said, I've no sympathies with either side of this conflict. My sympathies lie with those hit by the collateral damage: mainly the non-bargained employees and managers like yourself who are on mandatory 12x7s, but also the customers who are for damn sure not going to get a normal level of service. They are the losers here, not SBC, and not CWA.

This will have a stronger impact than you think

[citking]

I work for a CLEC (Competetive Local Exchange Carrier) that leases lines from SBC per the 1998 Telecommunications Act. This act provided the ability for smaller phone companies to gain a foothold in an industry largely controlled by SBC and Verizon, to name a few. This is the Act in a nutshell. Google for more info if you are curious about the details.

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.

Unions are anti-competitive

[hellfire]

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.