Verizon Accused of Slighting Copper Infrastructure

High Fibre writes "Regulatory hearings in Virginia raise questions about Verizon's stewardship of its copper infrastructure, with workers accusing the telecom of cheaping out on maintenance in Virginia due to its preoccupation with its FiOS network. Ars covers the fracas and gives more time to Verizon than the local media do. From Ars: 'During testimony given before the Virginia State Corporation Commission last week... workers painted a dire picture of the state of Verizon's copper network, saying that the equipment required to make repairs — including tools and cable — is not even available.' Verizon disagrees, saying that while it's a challenge to manage and maintain both networks, they are not neglecting their copper infrastructure." A union official gave written testimony about the Verizon problems, presumably so that individual workers would not have to testify in public and open themselves to retribution.

Comments

Where the anti-union rhetoric comes from

[Ryan C.]

You're pretty close I'd say, but then miss your own point.

Unions are a victim of their own success. They got better contracts and better benefits, which raised the price of the goods and services produced by union shops. Laws of the free market then shifted business away from union shops to offshore and non-union shops. Unions then resorted to some questionable tactics to "fight to keep what they have" from heavy lobbying and lawmaking to outright extortion and violence.

This fight has cost our country, and has negatively affected *your* wages as well as mine. This is not information from Faux News, just google economists and unions. E.g. , economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway of Ohio University calculated that labor unions have cost the American economy $50 trillion over the past 50 years alone and it also found that wages in general suffered dramatically as a result of an economy that is 30 to 40 percent smaller than it would have been in the absence of labor unionism.

Sorry, I know it's good for you and your family right now, but you can't mess with the free market without consequences down the road.

Re:I would suspect Verizon normally...

[ErichTheRed]

I don't know where all the anti-union rhetoric comes from, but I suspect it comes from unions having better contracts with better benefits, and then the general public getting pissed when unions fight to keep what they have.

I tend to agree, but there are some exceptions. Sometimes unions can destroy companies by refusing to compromise. Eastern Airlines was put out of business because its unions refused to change their contracts. Mainly though, they're a great deal for anyone who's in them. Whether the conservatives admit it or not, the unions were what grew the middle class in the 50s and 60s. Having a steady job you won't get fired from on a whim allows you to buy a house/car/whatever and not worry so much about where your paycheck is coming from. Also, I think that if labor was stronger, you wouldn't see things like CEOs getting $50 million pay packages for doing nothing.

If IT were unionizable, I'd be on-board in a second. Think about all the stuff you don't typically get as an IT employee... Generous vacation you're actually allowed to take. Clear definitions of your work hours, duties and rules. Not having to play the salary-negotiation shell game. Encouraged long-term employment, and therefore better domain-specific knowledge within your industry. Paid training. Etc.

Sure, they have their problems. But faulting people just because they have it better than you is not a good way to go. Heck, if you told me to give up a small percentage of my salary for guaranteed high wages and raises every year, I'd say you were crazy not to sign up. Just having someone negotiate the terms of your employment for you is reason enough.

Re:I would suspect Verizon normally...

[drinkypoo]

Yep, reminds me much of ... every frickin' corporate job. The "can't be fired" comes from managers protecting their sycophants (or family, or co-conspirators, etc), and the people who actually do the work are not the one who get rewarded for having done it. (With rare exceptions.)

While you have a valid point, my argument is not that such things never happen outside of a union shop, only that the prevalence is increased, and your attempt to place unions and corporations into some kind of false dichotomy has been noticed and is not appreciated.

Don't try to put words in my mouth. I don't appreciate it.

Try this reality kool-aid for a change... you'll start noticing how much of what you've been told is propaganda in support of the corporate powers-that-be.

Look, this is based on direct observation, so why don't you take your patronizing attitude and blow it out your ass? I've worked in union shops (luckily, in a non-union position) and I've worked in non-union shops, and I've seen what I've seen. The plural of anecdote is not data, but every time I see a union do anything, I see certain people at the top taking advantage of the people below them in the union, and I see the union used to protect people who do not do their job from being terminated.

Is it okay for a manager to protect someone who doesn't do their job? Of course not. Is it okay for a union to do the same thing? Of course not. And the fact that managers do it doesn't excuse the fact that unions do it, or the other way around. It's all bad.

Don't try to distract people from my message with misdirection. As you can see from sibling comments, it's already failed.