Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

More Than 20,000 AT&T Workers Are Getting Ready To Protest Nationwide (fortune.com)

Posted by msmash on from the going-on-strike dept.

Aaron Pressman, reporting for Fortune: Some 21,000 workers in AT&T's wireless business have overwhelming voted to authorize a strike just ahead of the expiration of their contract on Saturday. The vote, which was expected, comes after 17,000 additional workers in AT&T's phone, internet, and cable services in Nevada and California also approved a strike authorization last month. They have been working without a contract since April. But despite the strike authorization votes -- a common tactic to increase pressure on management during labor negotiations -- AT&T said it was still seeking to find common ground with its workers. Unlike some of its peers, AT&T has had a long run of labor peace with its workers and their main union, the Communications Workers of America (CWA).

73 comments

  1. Oh crap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope my phone still works.

    1. Re:Oh crap! by cayenne8 · · Score: 0
      Fuck'em.

      I'm sure there are plenty of other, non-union people out there that would really like a decent job.

      If no contract in place, nothing from stopping ATT from hiring new folks that aren't union.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re: Oh crap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah illegals

    3. Re:Oh crap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that's the whole point of an organized strike. It's easy to fire and replace 1 person. Not so easy to fire and replace 38,000 of them.

    4. Re: Oh crap! by JamesDeveen · · Score: 2

      All these companies want is cheap labor. Hence that hey support illegals taking America jobs

    5. Re:Oh crap! by Cramer · · Score: 2

      Actually, it's not. It would, however, be "legally actionable". (firing striking union employees is a big no-no.)

    6. Re:Oh crap! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's not. It would, however, be "legally actionable". (firing striking union employees is a big no-no.)

      Well, it shouldn't be...?

      It said they were without contract. If there's no contract, meaning old contracts are up....they what is illegal about firing them?

      What legally can they do if there is no existing contract in force?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    7. Re: Oh crap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Old contract still in force until new agreement is reached

    8. Re: Oh crap! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      All these companies want is cheap labor. Hence that hey support illegals taking America jobs

      I had a girlfriend once that worked for ATT for years. From my knowledge through her, they aren't underpaid on any level at ATT.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    9. Re: Oh crap! by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      Old contract still in force until new agreement is reached

      The article said the old contract is about to expire.

      If it expires, it cannot be in force.

      if that were the case, it would me that potentially anyone that ever enters into a contract, could never legally get out of one and there would never be any such thing as an expiration date on a contract.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    10. Re:Oh crap! by Cramer · · Score: 2

      Welcome to the world of unions.

    11. Re:Oh crap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you.

    12. Re: Oh crap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use your head when you say dumb comments

    13. Re: Oh crap! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The existing union contract is automatically in effect until replaced by a new one. This is still America...

    14. Re:Oh crap! by lsatenstein · · Score: 2

      Fuck'em.

      I'm sure there are plenty of other, non-union people out there that would really like a decent job.

      If no contract in place, nothing from stopping ATT from hiring new folks that aren't union.

      Unions are the reason you have a reasonable salary and medical benefits. Probably too, the unions stopped
      many of the H1B recruits from coming over. Union agreements require bidding for jobs and internal hiring.
      There is still a good role for unions, unless you are a billionaire.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    15. Re:Oh crap! by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      Unions are the reason you have a reasonable salary and medical benefits. Probably too, the unions stopped many of the H1B recruits from coming over. Union agreements require bidding for jobs and internal hiring.

      There is still a good role for unions, unless you are a billionaire.

      Unions *DID* provide a much needed service when they came into being.

      However, once past that, they just became bloated, political, self serving money sucking entities that care more about self sustainment than the workers.

      They are more a hindrance than a help in this modern age.

      And over the past couple decades, I've worked more contracting, so, I am perfectly capable of negotiating my bill rates, and paying my own medical, benefits, etc.

      Any reasonably intelligent person should be able to do the same....and if doing W2, they should be able to negotiate their salary in the same way. If they're good, they'll get good pay and benefits.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  2. Why do you need a contract to work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    What is wrong with at-will employment where you can be held accountable for your job perform....

    Oh wait... yeah nevermind.

    1. Re:Why do you need a contract to work? by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I work in a union shop (in IT no less) - you can still be fired for being irresponsible - they just need documentation of this. I've seen people fired before for things like downsizing, showing up late constantly, showing up drunk, poor performance. At-will - your terrible boss (or your boss's boss) can fire you for whatever reason they want to - even a bad reason.

      To turn this around btw - what is wrong with employees working with management on an employment contract? Its sad that it has to be codified in law to come together like that.

    2. Re:Why do you need a contract to work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not about job performance. It's about company performance. When you take a job at one place, you are turning down offers at others. You are not just investing your time and productivity, you are also investing potential opportunity (and many times that extends to family, locations, schools etc). The truth of the matter is that in a company-employee relationship, it is the employee that has the most to lose. The company outlines certain expectations from an employee, there is no reason that the employee can't expect some semblance of corporate fidelity to the original terms of their agreement. Sadly people like you will say "if it changes, just go elsewhere" as if none of the extensive impacts of a job in a person's life is applicable or can be changed at a whim. Your attitude and others like it have eroded a healthy relationship until it is no longer healthy, but requires contracts which, quite honestly, are wholly one sided and not in the favor of labor.

    3. Re:Why do you need a contract to work? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's more that they want more money diverted to their own pockets. The same as the rest of us, really.

      The main thrust of prices is you're paying the wages of workers providing goods and services. Apple, Microsoft, and Google are big outliers with their 25% profit margins, and Tesla's luxury niche lets them get 22% in a market where Ford and GM make in the 12% range; people like to look at these and at single-quarter or single-year profits of healthcare companies (some as high as 49% net profit margins) and claim businesses are taking all the money. On average, American businesses are getting less than 10% of all spending as profit; the rest of the total income is wages. Even some of the big healthcare companies swinging 49% in some years are pulling 30% and higher net losses in others, averaging 11%-14% (which is still high).

      You get a narrative where people want higher wages and claim businesses should just take less profit. or CEOs should make less; in reality, that doesn't happen. Profits aren't that high to begin with--e.g. Comcast's $86/month Internet service comes from a business with an 11% net profit margin, so they could drop the price to $77.60 and make $0 profit (assuming they drop the price of every product they offer evenly), and likewise would raise that price basis as they raise wages. CEO salaries are pretty low on a per-worker term, so much so that the top executives of Ford combined could forego all their salary and bonuses and get enough money to buy a latte for every Ford employee once each month.

      What we're really talking about is raising wages and raising the price of products. GM could pay workers more and raise the price of cars. AT&T could pay workers more and raise the price of phone service. Then, we would either have less money to spend on other things and thus support fewer American jobs or we'd all move to T-Mobile where they didn't raise worker wages so we could pay less for service and complain about AT&T suddenly laying off 15,000 employees when 80% of their customer base moved to other providers.

      Everyone really wants to imagine money comes from nowhere and businesses have infinite profits. The world isn't a video game where we suppose there are consumers and they have money; it's a complex system where money moves back and forth.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    4. Re:Why do you need a contract to work? by TFlan91 · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's an intrinsic part of the American Dream.

      In the American Dream, you are the up and coming baron of some, now unknown, but soon to be discovered, market. Knowing that you will become this overlord of industry, why would you vote to put up such a strong road block as unions? Wouldn't you rather vote to ensure that they don't impede your eventual rise to wealth?

    5. Re:Why do you need a contract to work? by Solandri · · Score: 2

      I ran a non-union shop. You need to document your reasons for firing regardless. If the ex-employee sues you for wrongful termination, you need to be able to prove your reasons for firing the person were legit. For minor offenses (things that don't warrant immediate firing), you need to show that you warned the employee multiple times. That's why the boss makes you sign that paper saying you were warned to stop showing up late - it's their documented proof that they warned you.

      So whether or not the shop is union is irrelevant - any employer wanting to stay in business will document reasons for dismissal. Just like employees worry about dishonest bosses firing them in at-will states for some made-up reason, employers worry about dishonest employees suing them for made-up wrongful dismissal charges in all states.

    6. Re:Why do you need a contract to work? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1, Troll

      It's more that they want more money diverted to their own pockets.

      According to TFA, the workers are also upset about outsourcing. I am not sure that striking is a good way to convince AT&T that they should outsource less, and depend more on reliable American labor.

    7. Re:Why do you need a contract to work? by roman_mir · · Score: 0

      That's why I am expanding my operations in the Ukraine rather than in the 'western paradise'. Because I should be able to hire and fire anybody at any time I want for any reason I want, just like you are free to purchase your food from any store you want for any reason you want at any time you want and nobody can stop you (nor should they be able to stop you).

      --
      You can't handle the truth.
    8. Re:Why do you need a contract to work? by cayenne8 · · Score: 0

      At-will - your terrible boss (or your boss's boss) can fire you for whatever reason they want to - even a bad reason.

      Well, that's pretty much only if you are a white guy.

      If you are a minority, or even better, a female minority....they will always think thrice before firing you unless it is so well documented and so egregious, that they don't fear discrimination lawsuits.

      If you are minority female Federal Govt., you never have a worry there really. If you even hint at a lawsuit of that type, they'll happily pay you to stay home for the most part, but won't outright fire you.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    9. Re:Why do you need a contract to work? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Kind of the same problem. It's all economizing: if you lose your job, you lose income and now you have to find work (effort). At the same time, instability is bad, and the threat to your own ability to hold a job is visceral and scary.

      The thing is outsourcing (trade) and technical progress both immediately eliminate jobs at a point. You find a faster way to shear sheep, you only need 9 of every 10 sheep shearers; that last guy can go find somewhere new to work. Maybe that doesn't happen, and the drop in the price of wool causes 10% more wool purchases; or maybe something in-between happens, and only 1 in 20 workers goes away; or maybe the opposite happens, and wool becomes affordable enough that its superiority to cotton causes it to displace cotton, and now you hire 8 times the sheep shearers but the cotton industry has round after round of layoffs as nobody's buying anymore.

      Trade and technical progress also reduce the actual cost of products, and leads to a reduction in price. That means your ability to buy your own clothes instead of making them or waiting for rich people to throw them out for scavenging when the new styles come in is contingent on generations of your forefathers losing their jobs repeatedly to less-labor-intensive processes. At a point, those processes turned the market around and made clothing a widely-purchased commodity, although that came when people could afford it by way of us not having to employ a lot of people per clothing article made--which, when you go from a 10%-population market to a 98%-population market, is still a lot of movement. Even then, the actual ability to purchase clothing means the same money wasn't spent on something else--either because that something else got cheaper or because people liked clothes better and stopped buying it.

      From that market turn-around, you then only have the reduction of clothing-maker jobs. New tech to make clothes cheaper, but we don't buy more clothing (we buy video games instead); outsourcing to import clothing cheaply, and the manufacture jobs vanish (but we can buy other things). The shipping and retail worker jobs grew with each of these--more stuff bought, more shipped, more sold--although we economize that, too (wooden shipping pallets...).

      I'm part of this system, too. My job can go away. I work with computers and do system administration and network security; I always look for ways to minimize the costs. Less labor, fewer analysts, easier administration. I moved this company from Linux with programs to Linux configured by Puppet, and now to Linux with Docker, and now performing my job takes literally 1/100 as long (I've replaced repeating processes that took 6 days with processes that take 5 minutes, seriously). I always argue for systems that do most of their analysis and tuning for us so we don't need to hire 15 analysts for 24-hour coverage--this is literally the difference between Snort with BASE and something like CISCO FirePower: one person can do IDS analysis with FirePower here, and it would literally take at least 15 analysts at $40k/year each (plus more administrative overhead) to stitch together a cheap, home-grown system. I'm not exempt.

      I've torn out systems in the past and re-architected them with half as many components because the parts I wanted to remove were breaking. Near 100% of support calls for those systems went away, and several impacted departments down the line became more-productive. I'm removing over 90% of the systems I've ever supported because I've built new stuff that replaces it all. I've argued for new business processes, and am trying to develop a documentation process and procedure here--and document the processes used to deploy new systems, deploy new software, and maintain all this crap. It's all trivial, and it's getting more-trivial day by day.

      Eventually they just won't need me. They might promote me to another position just to keep me. People have tried; I've had people try to hire me simply to have me on-hand for

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    10. Re:Why do you need a contract to work? by DickBreath · · Score: 2

      If corporations don't like employees in a given state or country, can't they just go elsewhere?

      Doesn't it work the same with the shoe on the other foot?

      Londo Mollari: my shoes are too tight.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    11. Re:Why do you need a contract to work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No shit. It's a good thing I don't know a single story of a woman or minority ever being discriminated against, ever. And terribly sad that our court system is so stacked the other way- always finding in favor of the legally-inexperienced, often lawyerless, relatively poor minority or female former employee instead of the lawyer-on-retainer, deep-pocketed, been-there-before employer.

      Just because most corporate employment lawyers are cowards and most MBA HR-types have incredible legal naivete doesn't mean you should be so racist and misogynist.

    12. Re:Why do you need a contract to work? by Cramer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wrongful termination is nearly impossible to prove in an at-will state. You can be fired for "any reason, including NO REASON". What does get employers in trouble is running the mouth about why they fired someone. (this is why no company will say why an employee is no longer there.)

    13. Re:Why do you need a contract to work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Short but applicable anecdote.

      I was hired into an operations position, same day and same contract company as a black woman. It soon became obvious she did not have the skills for the job, no knowledge of Linux, had to be walked through other basic tasks, etc. They ended up just giving me the tasks, since I had the skills. After they did not renew her contract, she sued because she was "not given the same opportunities" as I was. Company had to settle and pay her. She ended up much richer than I did, without having to do any of the work.

      Posted AC to avoid flames/SJWs.

    14. Re:Why do you need a contract to work? by Mass+Overkiller · · Score: 2

      Although this is true for at-will states, if you get fired you can still sue for wrongful termination. It will still be up to the company to prove that you were NOT fired for actionable events (such as being female, or gay, or asian, etc). Most smart companies (HR specifically) will fire you with NO REASON thus if you sue, they just have to prove you were not fired because you were female or black or whatever. If they fire you for A REASON then when you sue they ALSO have to prove that reason. So if you're fired because you show up late, and they state that in documentation, when you sue, they have to PROVE you were late and notified of being late, etc. with documentation of the infractions. In a lot of companies, if you are fired, there is NO REASON given. You might be told you're fired because you're late, but the documentation does not list a reason, thus helping the company in the event of a lawsuit.

    15. Re:Why do you need a contract to work? by rijrunner · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if you fire someone for any reason other than it being their fault, you are on the hook to cover their unemployment.

    16. Re:Why do you need a contract to work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, and if you are caught stealing from your company, they will likely don't want to pay unemployment and actually don't have to. I've know people that were fired from a fast food place for grazing (eating without paying for food). This counts as theft and the person was not able to get unemployment. It's kind of funny, because the real reason they got fired was they refused to take a promotion to manager multiple times so they found a way to get rid of her. It's funny if it is not you.

  3. Morally Outrageous!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    How dare these poor protest their lot in life!!

    Poor deserve to be poor!
    Musk deserves more riches!
    That is the order of things!

    Kill the poor!!!
    Give their money to ELON MUSK!!!!!!

  4. Simple solution... by slasher999 · · Score: -1, Troll

    Fire them, union goes away and the company is no longer held hostage, hire new people (or even the same people in some cases).

    1. Re:Simple solution... by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      On one hand - that's illegal, but on the other hand - the government rarely enforces labor laws.

      I do suspect hiring 20,000+ employees would cost more than simply agreeing on a contract.

    2. Re: Simple solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worker: It's been 5 years; I'd like a pay raise.
      Company: You're fired. We won't be 'held hostage' by our workforce.

    3. Re: Simple solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you. Pay me.

    4. Re: Simple solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not necessarily! I worked for a subcontractor supporting AT&T Uverse. I'm sure we made far less and worked more hours. Generally 10 hours a day on the phones and about 55 hours a week!

    5. Re:Simple solution... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      On one hand - that's illegal, but on the other hand - the government rarely enforces labor laws.

      They will enforce them even less once Obama's NLRB members are termed out and replaced with Trump appointees. More Republicans in the federal courts will also lead to weaker unions.

    6. Re:Simple solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed that part about Obama being a corporate puppet. The NLRB was useless before and won't change significantly. they will stop only publically unacceptable abuses of workers rights, no different than Obama's appointees.

    7. Re:Simple solution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck the company-- employers need to be held accountable to their labor.

  5. Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Cancel Union contract.

    Pay employees the same wages anyway. Hire scabs for defectors. Fire them for not showing up for work.

    They did say there is no active contract, right? No right to strike.

    Shift to right to work in all jurisdictions. Again keep same wages and benefits. No valid complaint.

    Break the unions.

    1. Re:Simple solution by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      I'm in oil patch country, as were my ancestors.

      It's clear you're not from around here.

      There was a time when unions ruled the day, as reported in this anecdotal, bias-confirming evidence provided by log-time /. member, CaptainDork ( 3678879 ):

      I was working at Texaco ca. mid '80s when I saw my brother-in-law (BIL) walking out the plant, leading a crowd that was expanding quite rapidly as he approached.

      I asked him WTF and he said a supervisor asked him to climb up the side of a tower on a rusted ladder.

      BIL asked for a safety inspector to OK the ladder.

      The super refused, and BIL pointed to the ladder and said, "Well, you go first."

      The super said, "Go up or give me your badge."

      BIL threw his badge at the super.

      Other union workers began pelting the super with their badges.

      Union steward shows up, listens to both sides and calls a wildcat.

      In 15 minutes, after tossing my badge on the ground, I'm home drinking a beer watching it all on TV.

      --

      Those days are long over. The unions are busted now.

      They are trying to make a comeback, as in pendulum swing.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    2. Re:Simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That or the companies are so damn paranoid about safety that there aren't too many legitimate safety complaints. Near as I can tell, all of the strikes here have been either so that the most senior union members don't actually have to ever show up, or unrealistic salary demands. This is a big change since the 90's. I walked the line with CWA in 1998, but we've been pretty reasonable and effective at negotiating for the last 20 years.

  6. since April! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have been working without a contract since April.

    I've been working without a contract since September... of 1981.

    So far, so good.

    1. Re:since April! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its so good your can ascribe your narrow anecdote to an entire industry.

    2. Re:since April! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both sides are free to walk away if they don't perceive the deal as being in their interest. If neither side walks away, then by definition both see themselves as benefiting, and it's a win-win situation.

  7. Do they really think that will work? by damn_registrars · · Score: 0, Troll

    Labor strikes didn't even work very well when our nation was lead by a "liberal" president. Now we are lead by a maniac who prides himself in not paying workers. Where do these guys expect to get support from when AT&T moves to fire them? Anyone who has been involved in the job market in any way, shape or form in the past 2-5 years knows the situation is vastly worse for the worker than any part of government (of any stripe) will say.

    These workers will be canned, blacklisted, and replaced by younger people willing to work for vastly less - all in under a week. The official message from our dear government after that (disseminated by the "terrible media" that the same government claims to hate so much) will be that it is all the fault of the workers and their union.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Do they really think that will work? by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      These workers will be canned, blacklisted, and replaced by younger people willing to work for vastly less - all in under a week. The official message from our dear government after that (disseminated by the "terrible media" that the same government claims to hate so much) will be that it is all the fault of the workers and their union.

      These are the people that work on the POTS network.
      Perhaps if AT&T had thought ahead and moved to fiber end-to-end years ago, this wouldn't be an issue.
      However, they still have tons of copper in the ground, and you're not going to find someone at a job fair that knows how to deal with that.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
  8. Win/Win by grasshoppa · · Score: 2

    I can't stand AT&T or unions, so this is nothing but entertaining to me.

    Actually, strike that; I hope both lose.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re: Win/Win by JamesDeveen · · Score: 1

      Haters going to hate

    2. Re:Win/Win by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      I thought AT&T was too busy screwing their customers to be distracted with screwing their employees too.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    3. Re:Win/Win by rijrunner · · Score: 1

      Whoa.. The number one lesson of industry is that no company that has a bad customer relationship treats its own people any better..

    4. Re:Win/Win by weave · · Score: 1

      And this is yet another reason why the middle class has been dying. In the old days people would support each other even if this time it wasn't their own job on strike.

      But now it's like no one gives a shit about anyone else but themselves so we are all weaker as a result.

    5. Re:Win/Win by Imrik · · Score: 1

      I supported unions until I saw union workers "working" and heard about the workers that the unions' lawyers were and were not defending.

    6. Re:Win/Win by weave · · Score: 1

      I used to work for a union and I helped organize a grocery store -- Jewel T -- in Philly area in the early 80s. They had just ventured into the northeast market from Chicago at the time. I organized one small store of 10 people. And to avoid going union the chain closed down EVERY FUCKING STORE IN THE ENTIRE REGION and moved out of the region. To this day Jewel has not re-entered this market. Hundreds, maybe thousands of people lost their jobs. I felt horrible, and my boss's response was "good, at least that scab chain is out of our territory."

      So yeah, I know there is a dark side. There's also a dark side to management too.

      But the answer is not to throw out unions, but to reform them and make them work better.

    7. Re:Win/Win by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Flip side: US labor law is really, really terrible. It isn't particularly good for employees, and it's no great help to employers. It's very good at organizing political activism and enriching union bosses. I can see why they might have done this.

    8. Re:Win/Win by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

      I support competent workers with a strong work ethic...which is precisely why I don't support unions. Having joined unions in two separate industries ( well, conscripted is more the right term as I didn't have a choice of the matter ), I saw just what "supporting each other" amounted to. The least competent, least ethical, workers were protected from any disciplinary action...ever, and as a result gained seniority. New folks would start and be full of energy and ideas, ready to work hard and make a difference, only to be stifled and discouraged by the more senior workers.

      The best would leave, the rest would get beaten down and join the system.

      Then, when there would be layoffs, the best staff was shown the door first while the wastes with seniority would be safe.

      So no. No, I don't support unions.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  9. "Have overwhelming voted"? by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1

    The only thing more frightening than the thought that Slashdot editors don't read summaries before they publish them is the thought that they do....

  10. AT&T is making billions by Bruinwar · · Score: 1

    AT&T is making billions, thanks in part to the Union workers. They don't need concessions, they need to share the wealth.

    --
    SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
  11. Strike by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If they're calling for a strike, then it isn't something trivial.

    Everyone is quick to judge them, yet have zero information about what the contract is offering or what the issues are.

    I WORK for AT&T and this article on Slashdot is the first news I have heard on the matter. ( I fall under wireline vs wireless, though our contract is also up this year )

    For those who have not worked for a Union company, let me brief you on a few things.

    You cannot negotiate any part of your job with the company. Salary, benefits, time off, nothing. All of it is done from the Union.

    Our last contract, the healthcare premium increase effectively erased the mediocre raise we got. ( ~1 - 1.5% a year )

    The company no longer trains non-management employees ( I haven't seen any training for more than a decade ) for the equipment they're responsible for.
    The newer folks are supposed to learn from the veteran techs. ( Who carry the job most of the time )

    So you're effectively on your own to learn it. I am one of three people with a Cisco Cert ( my vacation time, my money to obtain it ) on my team and have full blown enable access to damn near every router and switch in the company. All the way up to the Core level systems.

    Think about that for a moment. The vast majority of my team has the same level of access and exactly ZERO formal training on any of it and the company could give two shits about it.

    Training, healthcare costs and a raise that isn't laughable are usually the big issues that Strikes are born from. It's not that the company can't afford it, they just take their workforce for granted and think all this stuff just magically works on its own somehow. :|

    Oh and for those who think you can replace everyone with just anyone off the street at a lower wage, it typically takes at least two years ( a year for the ultra-motivated ) for an already qualified someone to become proficient enough at their work to do so without help. Unless, of course, you think these folks are just born with innate knowledge of how specialized telecom hardware works and integrates with the other systems.

    If that were the case, the company would have replaced everyone a long time ago.

    So don't judge those considering a strike too harshly just yet. At least until we know what their reasons are.

    1. Re:Strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are lucky - you at least have a job. The AT&T IT department has outsourced close to 5000 jobs to Tech Mahindra in the last 3 years.
      The media made a big fuss about the Disney job loss - these 5K+ jobs shipped to India - no one bats an eye.

    2. Re:Strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, we don't care. If you don't like it, quit and take you "leet skillz" somewhere else.

    3. Re:Strike by Cramer · · Score: 1

      specialized telecom hardware... you mean the library of arcane AT&T procedures for doing almost anything? THAT is what takes a long time to learn. How to actually use the various types of hardware is something a great many people will already know.

    4. Re:Strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically what you're saying is that your union hasn't done shit for you while making themselves rich... sounds about right. Take some responsibility for correcting your own problem dude... get a job somewhere else that treats you better and pays you better for your skills. Here you sound like a complete crybaby by bitching about your poor ass situation but not doing shit to change it.

    5. Re:Strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So don't judge those considering a strike too harshly just yet. At least until we know what their reasons are."

      Simple, its about money.. When unions cry it is always about money.. Let the judgment begin.

    6. Re:Strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cannot negotiate any part of your job with the company. Salary, benefits, time off, nothing. All of it is done from the Union.

      and

      Training, healthcare costs and a raise that isn't laughable are usually the big issues that Strikes are born from. It's not that the company can't afford it, they just take their workforce for granted and think all this stuff just magically works on its own somehow. :|

      So you're blaming the company after saying your contract negotiation is done by the Union? Perhaps you've got a shitty contract because the Union didn't care to negotiate a better one.

    7. Re: Strike by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

      Yeah, always one in the crowd.

      Ok Mr. AC, let me throw this at you. With nearly 25 years of service behind you, would you just drop everything and walk out the door KNOWING what the IT job market is like if you're over 40 ? Or have you kept up with such things ?

      Would you still do it knowing you're one of the few that are left that will still get a pension ? ( $450 -$500k on top of whatever you built up into a 401k ) No, new hires no longer get them, the program is phasing out but those with my level of service are the last generation who will get them.

      Would you still do it knowing your skill sets are really only useful to another telecom company who will still be dealing with the same issues and the same Union ?

      Or you think you might just ride out the last five years in the hope you don't get laid off before you can retire ?

      Sure, it's an easy answer if you're 25. Not quite so simple once you start getting close to retirement age.

      Especially since I'm not willing to start over at half of my pay nor relocate since the home is paid off.

  12. Fuck At&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hope those fagots go out of business fast

  13. Union Lockouts by jimmifett · · Score: 0

    I'm quite proud to have written software to automate locking out striking union members from various systems at the push of a button over a decade ago for a certain checkmarked telecom.

    Granted, the code was a spaghetti mess based on bad design requirements that took limited advantage of technology available at the time. And the tech at the time also sucked. I'd totally re-write it completely different now-a-days, and it would be BEAUTIFUL! Even despite the stupid design requirements.

    F Unions!

  14. at&t good for the workforce? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AT&T might be a good company for the workforce. A high school graduate could work their skills up in AT&T. After a decade or 2, he/she could move on to a job, which values his/her AT&T acquired skills.

  15. Trump tweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    10, 9, 8......