Slashdot Mirror


AT&T Sheds Thousands of Employees After Touting GOP Tax Plan, Giving Out Bonuses (appleinsider.com)

Prior to Christmas, AT&T and DirecTV gave layoff notices to a large number of landline, legacy service, and home installers spanning the country. "It is not clear if the firings relate to the pending AT&T and Time Warner acquisition, or how it specifically relates to the announcement that the company was giving $1,000 bonuses to 200,000 employees in commemoration of the tax overhaul signed just before Christmas," reports Apple Insider. Slashdot reader deadwill69 writes: Just more doublespeak after they announced their bonus program to justify the tax cuts. Seems they really didn't mean it after all. "Technology improvements are driving higher efficiencies, and there are some areas where demand for our legacy services continues to decline, and we're adjusting our workforce in some of those areas as we continue to align our workforce with the changing needs of the business," AT&T said in a statement to the Chicago Tribune. "Many of the affected employees have a job offer guarantee that ensures they'll be offered another job with the company, and we'll work to find other jobs for as many of them as possible." Let's hope they keep that promise. On a bright note: their service really couldn't get much worse?

105 comments

  1. Re: Will you just rename the site already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only non snark in this post was, for once, complaints about the phone company, a bi partisan issue.

    So how is this DNC propaganda, aside from being factual?

  2. Re: Will you just rename the site already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This. This isnt news its opinion. Assumes the bonuses and firing are related then clearly says they are not. Getting to keep more money because of tax cuts doesnt make people demand legacy services. And the poke at atnt avout shirty service, yeah thats news.

  3. Union had already negotiated bonus by rminsk · · Score: 5, Informative

    The workers union, Communication Workers of America, were trying to negotiate a raise of $4000 for the workers. The $1000 bonus came out of those talks earlier in the year. AT&T’s announcement comes one week after the company reached a new contract agreement with its workers. The contract came after a year of pressure from the workers’ union.

    1. Re:Union had already negotiated bonus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical workers union... Give them 1/4th of what they ask for then fire enough employees to pay for it. BTW... AT&T service sucks.

    2. Re:Union had already negotiated bonus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. The union negotiated the contract months ago. The bonus has nothing to do with the union. The bonus goes to managers too

    3. Re: Union had already negotiated bonus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Atnt sucks then don't use them. Yay free marlet.

    4. Re: Union had already negotiated bonus by kenh · · Score: 1

      They are 'firing' 3/10ths of one percent of the workforce (600 out of 200K) - is AT&T giving it's workers a 3/10th of one percent raise?

      I think not.

      --
      Ken
    5. Re:Union had already negotiated bonus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you please cite your source?

    6. Re:Union had already negotiated bonus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Union contract itself for the different districts have no provision for a December bonus. It was not negotiated. There is a November bonus that is based on the change in stock price.

      http://www.cwa9003.org/?p=3023

  4. Re:Will you just rename the site already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is it you failed to mention Benghazi or Hillary's email server? You must be slipping.

  5. FirstNet by sdinfoserv · · Score: 0

    Earlier this year, AT&T was selected to be the broadband provider for First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) to build and manage the first broadband network dedicated to America’s police, firefighters and emergency medical services (EMS). The FirstNet network will cover all 50 states, 5 U.S. territories and the District of Columbia, including rural communities and tribal lands in those states and territories.
    http://about.att.com/story/fir...

  6. NOT THAT TIME WARNER by EvilSS · · Score: 5, Informative

    AT&T is trying to buy Time Warner the media company (Warner Brothers Studios, Turner Broadcasting, HBO, etc), not Time Warner Cable (TWC) the cable company which Charter already bought.

    Just putting it out there before the inevitable posts about AT&T buying another ISP.

    --
    I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    1. Re:NOT THAT TIME WARNER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe that explains why AT&T is trying to make Trump look good, to get on his good side. Sessions and the Dept of Justice have already sued to block the Time Warner deal, perhaps because it includes CNN.

  7. Trickle down economics doesn't work by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And everybody knows this. What's crazy is that 32% of the population still support this bill (I'm not counting the 1% of the 33%). On the other hand 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Sure, the $1.5 trillion in new debt from this bill is already being used to by Paul Ryan et al argue for entitlement 'reform' (e.g. taking them away from anyone under 55). But you know what? A lot of us are just trying to make it until our kids are on their own. Sure, best case this is $200/mo in your pocket per person. But if you and your wife both suddenly have $400/mo that's a car payment and gas.

    Bills like this take advantage of the desperate situation most Americans find themselves in. What sucks the most is, that entire situation is completely by design...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Trickle down economics doesn't work by 110010001000 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Of course. And Trump has been running ads on TV "thanking him" from "lowering taxes". It was a plan that worked perfectly. Here is $2. Just don't notice I am taking $20,000. Trickle down economics does work though - it just doesn't work for those that aren't on top.

    2. Re:Trickle down economics doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      32% of America would agree with Donald Trump if he sold the country off to human-eating alien shark people.

    3. Re:Trickle down economics doesn't work by Dutchmaan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So you're asking for evidence about the GOP using their tax scam to attack social services (something that has been fully PREDICTED for decades) and THEN proceed to say "Democrats created a welfare state by telling black women to kick out their men." while not OFFERING any evidence....

      Essentially you make up the "What's crazy is that 32% of the population still support this bill (I'm not counting the 1% of the 33%)"

    4. Re:Trickle down economics doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I call BS on that one. Right now, the US has the best economy ever. We have full employment, the Dow is at record levels, and only climbing. The people whining about work are the ones too lazy to actually go get jobs. With this tax cut, it means every American essentially has 15-20% more cash in their pocket, which only will further help things, as when people buy stuff, more workers are needed.

      The "desperate situation" is one of entitlement and laziness. The jobs are out there, but it might actually take saving the game and turning off the PlayStation in order to actually get one.

    5. Re:Trickle down economics doesn't work by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Whatever you are smoking, get more of it. It seems to be a doozy.

      If government takes the money it will spend it in America. Even if it is a waste, white elephant boondongle bridge to nowhere, it is money spent in America. Every dollar spent by X is a dollar earned by Y. This will stimulate the economy.

      Give a microscopic tax cut to the actual citizens and give billions to corporations (who are people), they will invest it in India, China, Taiwan and other places. We will be empowering economies to compete with us, while sapping the Americans of the energy to live and consume.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    6. Re: Trickle down economics doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there's one thing that scares the living hell out of lefties, it is people who are successful, productive and self-sufficient. Such people have no need for the horseshit that lefties want to force on everyone. So we should expect lefties to virulently, and even violently, fight against anything and anyone who empowers average people.

    7. Re:Trickle down economics doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Companies will pay their employees as little as they can get away with and tax policy will not change that at all. A corporation with extra cash will pay their execs extra bonuses, raise dividends and do share buybacks. All of those will have little impact on the employees who won't see the bonuses and most don't have much of a 401k.

      Companies will sell their product for as much as the market will pay for those products. Tax policy won't lower cost of goods sold.

      All we're doing with this tax bill is paying less on our bills to give ourselves more cash today. And by ourselves I mean mostly the upper end of society.

      On top of all of this, companies will now get more bang for their buck when they have a layoff and machines that replace people will become cheaper (due to being able to depreciate faster).

    8. Re:Trickle down economics doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worked wonders for USSR. Stimulated their economy pretty well, all those "projects of the century".

      If you want to stimulate economy - let ppl vote with their money, and make sure they keep what they earn.

    9. Re:Trickle down economics doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most economists are stating that this tax plan -- it doesn't pay for itself -- is not only unsustainable, but will result in significant long-term debt to the government.All you're doing is kicking debt down the road for others to pay, you're actually increasing it, and you consider this a good thing?

      You should study economics more, and find better information sources. In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.

    10. Re: Trickle down economics doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It worked well, except for the fact that the government failed and collapsed lol.

    11. Re:Trickle down economics doesn't work by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 0

      In terms of borrowing money, Federal government spending per capita in constant dollars has increased by 4x over the last 60 years. During the same time, federal government income per capita in constant dollars has increased by 3.5x.

      The deficit is a result of government spending growing much faster than the increase in revenue has increased. It can't be attributed to less revenue because there is way more tax revenue over time. Saying revenue levels is why the debt is being added to is ridiculous. The government is borrowing money to pay for excessive government spending.

      So yeah, let's reduce the debt by cutting spending back to say, per capita inflation adjusted levels of just 12 years ago and we can reduce the debt by a couple of Trillion dollars every year, but whining about a mouse of tax cuts when the elephant in the room is spending just discredits your position.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    12. Re: Trickle down economics doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a left-of-center liberal and think empowering people is wonderful, and so have a lot of other left liberals and right liberals.

    13. Re:Trickle down economics doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... that entire situation is completely by design.

      Not quite. The bit "by design" is congress-critters forcing the government to buy equipment and supplies at fixed prices; no tenders, no price-comparisons, no imports. This converts almost every government supplier into a monopoly. Again, the US government isn't in control.

      ... take advantage of the desperate situation ...

      If poor people get more money, it has to come from somewhere, if rich people get more money, it has to come from somewhere. That leaves a shrinking middle-class paying for themselves and everyone else; not an economically or socially stable situation.

      taking them away from anyone under 55.

      When I last looked, pensions consumed about 47% of the welfare budget, sickness benefits about 42%, unemployment benefits about 11%. Which one do people complain about most? Whereas, if one really wants to save money, one should be shooting the elderly or permanently incapacitated. I doubt the elderly, who spent their lives paying into a welfare scheme, will agree to be robbed of that money. Of course, Ryan Paul is really using this to attack the poor again; including the elderly is just a bit of easily-justified selfishness. If he truly believed in disenfranchising the vulnerable, he would also be demanding forced 'euthanasia', not letting the problem land on other tax-payers.

    14. Re: Trickle down economics doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What a load of crap. The people you magically describe in your magical single-axis civics thought process doesn't exist. I'm of the standard liberalism breed (centrist model, which is the essence of liberalism no matter what biased sources you'd like to consult). The goal is to always empower the maximum amount of people with the smartest approaches.

      The funny thing is, at least according to how you use the term "lefties" ... look at some of your most prominent people who are wealthy. Like a Warren Buffet for example. Takes your statements and merely smashes them.

      The fight is not against stuff that empowers the average person, that's exactly what individuals fight for. We fight against those that stack the deck against your poor and middle class. You never will see the success flourish if all you do is give everything to those who already have everything in hopes that they get "motivated."

    15. Re:Trickle down economics doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he sold the country off to human-eating alien shark people.

      Ahh. That explains it.

    16. Re: Trickle down economics doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't call myself a leftie. I don't live in the US but party I usually vote for would probably be described as libertarian by your folks. (Not exactly correct but the political language in the US is a bit limited due to the two party system.)

      What scares the living hell out of me is people who are rich enough to buy politicians.
      When you type "self-sufficient" you have to realize that a US-libertarian anarchy can't exists. It would be steamrolled by any nearby society that wants more lebenraum, so no matter what your political views are you will have to accept that there will be politicians and that they will have the power to change the law to take all your assets regardless of if you are rich or poor.
      That makes it necessary to have a political system that prevents corrupt kleptocrats to get into power.

      And no, you aren't rich and you will never be rich. Get that out of your head.
      You will never be in a position where politicians fear you enough to hesitate when they see your number when you call them.
      You have a couple of millions saved up? You aren't even close to being that rich.

  8. Re:Remember when Slashdot was a tech news site? by TigerPlish · · Score: 1

    And AT&T is what.. a cantaloupe grower? Last I heard they were in the tech business (telecom, which is the used car salesmen of tech, but still tech)

    --
    The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
  9. Re:Remember when Slashdot was a tech news site? by OffTheLip · · Score: 1

    You could have replaced AT&T with your cantaloupe grower of choice and the intent of the submission would be the same.

  10. Why are you ignoring the hiring? by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Over 200k people got bonuses (and also lower taxes), that's much better than a few thousand being laid off.

    It also does not detract from the many other companies that gave bonuses also...

    Meanwhile AT&T is also hiring into new positions, why is that not factored in? Some jobs will always be lost, and others gained. That has nothing to do with the tax bill - they will ramp up hiring as they already said: "Every $1 billion in capital invested in the telecom industry creates about 7,000 jobs for American workers, research shows.". It's still a net gain of workers in the end.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Why are you ignoring the hiring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who pays for the "few thousand being laid off"? How much does that cost?

      HINT: It's much more than the savings to those 200k people. You're looking at it from their point of view only, not the system as a whole, dummy.

    2. Re:Why are you ignoring the hiring? by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

      The system as whole includes the $1 *BILLION* increase in capital spending next year (which as mentioned will add about 7k jobs), what a shame you cannot read or you could have avoided beclowning yourself.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:Why are you ignoring the hiring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ONLY way to fix this is to increase wages on the low end. Businesses need people SPENDING money. Giving a shitload to those on top is putting a bandaid on a fucking volcano. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics (ie, anyone who isn't stupid enough to fall for Reagan's bullshit) understands this.

    4. Re:Why are you ignoring the hiring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found a $5 bill lying on the ground on my way to work this morning. Thank you Donald Trump and your glorious tax cuts.

    5. Re: Why are you ignoring the hiring? by kenh · · Score: 2

      Follow the link in the summary, AT&T is cutting 600 jobs, not 'thousands'.

      --
      Ken
    6. Re:Why are you ignoring the hiring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey bullshit artist, were you complaining when Obama's administration and congress borrowed $9T during his term? Oh right, Republicans all do this and Democrats cut it back. HA HA HA you lying motherfucker.

    7. Re: Why are you ignoring the hiring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you learned to read yet

      On Dec. 16, about 600 employees were notified of the pending layoffs. Most of those were across mid-west states, with some of those including higher-skilled workers.Other layoffs by the company include "more than 700" DirectTV home installers across the country. Additionally, in December, AT&T fired 215 technicians in "nine Southern states" according to the New York Post, with another 700 reportedly coming in Texas and Missouri in February.

      600+700+215+700 = 2215 employees total

    8. Re:Why are you ignoring the hiring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Over 200k people got bonuses (and also lower taxes), that's much better than a few thousand being laid off.

      That is literally the exact same argument that the globalists made about off-shoring low-skill jobs. Who knew the super ken doll was also a super globalist?

    9. Re:Why are you ignoring the hiring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only BS artist is you. A lot of Obama's administration was dealt with Republican-led congress (FACT). The 9T you're talking about. How about accounting for the wars under Bush and actually putting that on the books. Don't be so disingenuous.

    10. Re:Why are you ignoring the hiring? by Xyrus · · Score: 2

      The bonuses had nothing to do with the tax cut. That was part of a union negotiation from earlier this year. Needless to say, it was likely the firing of those employees that lead to the bonuses for the others.

      And stop calling it a tax-cut. That's BS marketing. You don't call a cash advance on a credit card a paycheck do you? The tax scam borrowed a huge chucnk of money, gave most of it to the rich and corporations, and then limited the cuts on everyone else so that when the bill comes due it's the middle class and lower who gets to pay it all back.

      That's assuming that they aren't forced to pay it back sooner as states will now have to make up the shortfall that will inevitably be a result of the non-discretionary cuts (that you can bet the republicans are masturbating over) next year. Higher state and local taxes are coming your way, and these fuckers know it which is why they capped SALT.

      But math is a liberal conspiracy, so keep believing whatever makes you happy.

      --
      ~X~
    11. Re: Why are you ignoring the hiring? by bongey · · Score: 1

      Except the layoffs were BEFORE the tax reform bill pass the Senate and the House. So this ENTIRE POST is 100% FALSE.

  11. More conspiracy crap by JustNiz · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Cable/Satellite TV market in the USA is dying on its feet, thanks to the big companies refusing to be flexible and alternative services like Netflix providing better options for less. The layoffs are all legacy/TV related and simply reflect this.

    1. Re: More conspiracy crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Netflix is spending $8B on new content this year, all paid for by incurring debt. It is not sustainable, and traditional media delivery companies could not run in the red for multiple years to create a content library.

    2. Re:More conspiracy crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Cable/Satellite TV market in the USA is dying on its feet, thanks to the big companies refusing to be flexible and alternative services like Netflix providing better options for less. The layoffs are all legacy/TV related and simply reflect this.

      Oh, so now you are picking and choosing the parts of AT&T that count? They are barely a media company, but they are a huge infrastructure company and it doesn't matter if that's cable tv or internet. If things are going gang-busters for internet, so gang-busters that they could hand out all those bonuses, then surely they could have done internal hires of these people rather than just cutting them lose? Right?

    3. Re:More conspiracy crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cable TV market might be dying, but cable companies themselves are doing just fine since they often have monopolies on the internet access cord cutters still need. They can reclaim whatever revenue they lose from declining TV subscribers by hiking internet access prices. Cable companies just cant lose.

  12. Re: Will you just rename the site already by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2

    Well I guess it's nice that they gave some bonus money to rank and file employees before the layoff, vs just the c-levels (per the norm).

    So progress perhaps?

  13. Is there a good alternative to Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot.

    Things haven't always been good around here, but I think they're looking bleaker than they have in a long time. I think it's almost as bad as during the Slashdot Beta era. Although the Beta site was shitty, at least the submissions then weren't as obviously biased and political as they tend to be today, and the discussion was tolerable.

    There are some other sites out there, but I'm not impressed with them.

    Hacker News doesn't cut it. There's far too much censorship there, in my opinion. It's not what I'd consider an open discussion venue. If you don't partake in the established group-think, I think they will attack you and drive you out.

    The same goes for Reddit. I find that too many of the subreddits are like Hacker News, with rampant censorship, and the only discussion that is allowed is sterilized drivel.

    Don't even bother mentioning Soylent News. It might not be as horrible as Hacker News or Reddit, but I think it's still a joke of a site. Its moderation system is worse than here, and is often abused, based on what I've seen of it. It also often gets submissions on its front page well after they're on the front page here at Slashdot, and Slashdot isn't known for being particularly fast at reporting news! Soylent News is an example of exactly what not to do!

    Pipedot is effectively dead at this point, I believe.

    Basically what I want is a site that:

    * Is focused on technology, science, mathematics, engineering, computing, programming, and relevant stuff like that.
    * Allows anonymous commenting, because having to create an account is fucking stupid.
    * Has little to no censorship, since the best discussion is free discussion where people don't fear being silenced for expressing their own opinion.
    * Doesn't try to work politics into literally everything.

    If anyone has any ideas, please let us know!

    I don't think that Slashdot can be salvaged, at least not without firing all of the existing editors and replacing them with impartial, apolitical editors who aren't trying to attack President Trump and the Republicans, and who aren't trying to constantly push a leftist agenda.

    1. Re:Is there a good alternative to Slashdot? by desdinova+216 · · Score: 0

      so you don't think we should criticize a government who is making decisions based on religion as opposed to science, or based on what will help his campaign donors as opposed what would benefit most of the people.

    2. Re:Is there a good alternative to Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are you bringing up the Obama administration? It hasn't been in power for almost a year now.

      I really don't see what a past administration's obsession with the religion of climate change, or what influenced their policy, has to do with finding an alternative to Slashdot.

      Get back on topic, please. If you can't suggest a good Slashdot alternative, then please go away.

    3. Re:Is there a good alternative to Slashdot? by Ranbot · · Score: 1, Troll

      I'm looking for a good alternative to Slashdot.

      Things haven't always been good around here, but I think they're looking bleaker than they have in a long time....
      Basically what I want is a site that:

      * Is focused on technology, science, mathematics, engineering, computing, programming, and relevant stuff like that.
      * Allows anonymous commenting, because having to create an account is fucking stupid.
      * Has little to no censorship, since the best discussion is free discussion where people don't fear being silenced for expressing their own opinion.... ...I don't think that Slashdot can be salvaged...

      I agree things look bleak on Slashdot and it's probably not salvageable... I would also like an alternative, but I haven't found it yet. However related to your criteria I think Slashdot's anonymous commentary and utter lack of censorship has handed this site over trolls and extreme opinions which have driven away the field experts who used to participate on this site. Slashdot's ideological stand against censorship has allowed the trolls rule, reduced most discussion to nonsense and opened the door to more politically-slanted submissions. There is an area between censorship and enforcing rules to foster discussion/community, which Slashdot has completely failed at.

    4. Re: Is there a good alternative to Slashdot? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      And there is your problem. The entire problem with Slashdot is a direct result of the abuse of the AC system.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  14. Those two things aren't related by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Informative

    to the tax cuts, any more than the bonuses were. The Bonuses were a hard fought and hard won victory by the Union that AT&T is taking credit for. What's more, they were a pyrrhic victory; the Union was trying to get pay raises but thanks to our shit economy for workers (which somehow posts record stock market wins every other day) they couldn't.

    Similarly, AT&T isn't hiring because of the Tax cuts, their CEO admitted that already. They're hiring because they need workers. Again, Trickle down doesn't work. Businesses hire workers to meet demand. You're trying to put cart before horse. Giving the rich money doesn't increase demand because one person can only spend so much in a day.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Those two things aren't related by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the bonuses apply to almost every AT&T employee, not just those affected by the union contract negotiations you're talking about. My wife works for AT&T at a low-level manager position, and she received the bonus a few days ago.

  15. You're deliberately twisting my words by rsilvergun · · Score: 1, Informative

    and you should be ashamed of yourself. Middle class and low income tax cuts are good. Both need relief. 62% of the tax cuts in this bill go to the 1% in the first 10 years. After that 100% go to them, since all the middle class tax cuts expire then.

    Meanwhile we are borrowing money to give it away to the ultra rich. That borrowed money is being used as a threat to eliminate programs that benefit the middle class and working poor. It's a massive wealth transfer to the monied aristocracy.

    You know this. You are far too intelligent not to know this. Why are you doing this? Is somebody paying you? Do you think the aristocracy is going to let you join? Do you have a rich relative that's going to leave you a fortune? Or are you just angry. Really, really angry. I get it. Life sucks. The job market sucks. But this is not how to fix it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:You're deliberately twisting my words by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 0, Troll

      The expiration of some of the tax cuts is a budget rules gimmick to be able to use reconciliation in 2017. No one expects them to actually expire because there is bipartisan support for renewing them. That already played out once with the Bush tax cuts and Obama. The people reporting otherwise are those trying to come up with partisan talking points. It makes it pretty obvious where you get your opinions from.

      The top 1% already pay more federal income taxes than the bottom 90% pay. If you're going to cut Federal income taxes, without a lot of contortions (some of which they did include in this bill for that very purpose), the people who actually pay the majority of taxes are likely to pay less taxes.

      In terms of borrowing money, Federal government spending per capita in constant dollars has increased by 4x over the last 60 years. During the same time, federal government income per capita in constant dollars has increased by 3.5x.

      The deficit is a result of government spending growing much faster than the increase in revenue has increased. It can't be attributed to less revenue because there is way more tax revenue over time. Saying "we are borrowing money to give it away to the ultra rich" is ridiculous. We're borrowing money to pay for excessive government spending.

      P.S. Your personal attacks are completely off the mark and appear to be mostly projection on your part....

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    2. Re:You're deliberately twisting my words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The expiration of some of the tax cuts is a budget rules gimmick to be able to use reconciliation in 2017. No one expects them to actually expire because there is bipartisan support for renewing them.

      (A) They say there is bipartisan support now. But talk is cheap, especially when you've got another 10 years to change your mind. Remember the GOP voted 50+ times to repeal obamacare when they knew it didn't matter. But when it finally did matter, they couldn't find their own dicks.

      (B) Hello, McFly? A gimmick is not something to be proud of. Without that gimmick, the additional debt caused by the bill goes up to something like $3 trillion dollars. In the face of all that extra debt, the republicans are gonna fight tooth-and-nail to stop the renewal. Well, they will if the party is still around in 10 years.

      The top 1% already pay more federal income taxes than the bottom 90% pay.

      And over the last 30 years they acquired 99% of all the new wealth generated by the economy. They do not need a tax break, they've got gold medals in winning the economy already. What they need is a fucking handicap so all the regular proles can something too.

    3. Re:You're deliberately twisting my words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And over the last 30 years they acquired 99% of all the new wealth generated by the economy.

      Complete and utter bullshit. First, the top 1% 30 years ago are a mostly different set of individuals than the top 1% currently. Second, however defined, they didn't get 99% of new wealth.

    4. Re:You're deliberately twisting my words by Altrag · · Score: 1

      No one expects them to actually expire because there is bipartisan support for renewing them

      Meaning whoever is in power at the time will have to decide between sinking the country even further in debt, or raising taxes on the rich again. Only one of those is likely to garner donor support.

      That already played out once with the Bush tax cuts and Obama

      And 2008 showed just how well Bush' economic policies worked out! Oh but of course we're supposed to blame Obama for that crash, even though it started several months before he took office. I mean Trump takes credit for things that happened before he was president.. I don't see why Obama shouldn't be afforded the same luxury right?!

      The top 1% already pay more federal income taxes than the bottom 90% pay

      Which is a pretty good indicator of income inequality given that those top 1% only pay a bit over 10% higher than the middle class rates last year (39.5% vs 25-28%,) and even less after Trump's cuts.

      spending growing much faster than the increase in revenue has increased.

      Yes, and drastically cutting income (ie: taxes) from the largest revenue source (the 1%, by your own admission) is not really helping the issue now is it?

      Saying "we are borrowing money to give it away to the ultra rich" is ridiculous. We're borrowing money to pay for excessive government spending.

      That previously was paid for by the ultra rich and no longer is. You can play with words as much as you want but the math works out the same in the end -- the rich get richer on the backs of everyone else.

    5. Re:You're deliberately twisting my words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, the top 1% 30 years ago are a mostly different set of individuals than the top 1% currently.

      Non-sequitur is non-sequitur.

      Second, however defined, they didn't get 99% of new wealth.

      Close the fuck enough

    6. Re:You're deliberately twisting my words by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      We get it, you're jealous of other people's work and success and you want some government guys with guns to go take stuff from them and give you and your friends some after they take their cut. That's what your "arguments" all boil down to, despite their inaccuracy of fact (for example, you apparently don't even understand marginal tax rates).

      It's just too bad that governing philosophy ends up the same each time, like Venezuela.

      Good thing that's not what the American people voted for in the last few elections. I suppose you'll just have to suck it up and do some work yourself, huh?

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    7. Re:You're deliberately twisting my words by Altrag · · Score: 1

      you're jealous of other people's work and success

      Where did that come from, exactly? Not to mention "work" is a pretty loose concept when we're talking about the 1% (and even success is a pretty questionable adjective for the ones who just inherited everything from daddy.)

      some government guys with guns

      I always thought the IRS came in with lawyers and accountants, but hey its 'Murca we're talking about so maybe they come packing too?

      to go take stuff from them

      Take what from them, exactly? Taxation is annoying but governments don't function without it. Its been a part of society for thousands of years. Why should a bunch of people who don't need the money anyway be the only ones who get off paying little to nothing while the rest of us have large amounts of our paychecks deducted?

      you apparently don't even understand marginal tax rates

      I do. I'm guessing you think I just pulled those %ages out of my ass? I didn't. That's the actual tax brackets for the "middle class" (25% up to 90k or so and 28% up to 190k or so) compared to the "upper class" (>400k.) I didn't feel it was necessary to break down all 7 tax brackets since it just gets worse from there when you start trying to consider exactly how many people at 9k/yr (ie: way, way below the poverty line) it would take to match a single billionaire's taxes, even when they only get 10% vs the billionaire's 39.5%. That's a hell of a lot of suffering people just so some rich asshat can brag to his friends that he has an extra zero in his bank balance.

      Do I think those who work hard and get rich should enjoy their dues? Sure. Do I think they need to stockpile billions upon billions of dollars they can't even spend that will, sooner or later, come out of my paycheck? Absolutely not.

      t's just too bad that governing philosophy ends up the same each time

      Or Finland or Sweden or Switzerland or Denmark or many of other European countries. There's a gigantic difference between "the government forcefully takes over all the industry and runs it poorly" as is the case in Venezuela, compared to "the government ensures people have their basic needs met, roads are paved, bridges aren't collapsing, etc." Unfortunately for the US, idiots like you who can't (or more often, refuse to) see the difference have been running the country for a long, long time now.

      Good thing that's not what the American people voted for

      We'll see how good a thing it is around 2027-2028 when the sunset clauses kick in. It isn't the rich who will be ponying up. They've made sure that those sunset clauses don't affect the tax cuts that benefit them specifically.

      in the last few elections

      Obama didn't run on a policy of tax cuts for the rich. Trump ran on a platform of tax cuts for the middle class and then changed his mind after taking office.
      The American people voted for exactly the opposite of what Trump's doing. He just doesn't care, and his zealot followers are happy to live in whatever lala land he cooks up for them no matter how far out of touch with reality it is. Pretty much everyone who isn't a die-hard Trump zealot is pissed off about this tax bill, the net neutrality debacle, etc. Even those that initially supported him (without the zealotry) have turned away from him in droves, and they're slowly turning away from the republican party in general.

      I suppose you'll just have to suck it up and do some work yourself, huh?

      Luckily I'm Canadian, so even if I got laid off or break my leg or contract some horrible disease, I'm not totally hosed and have the opportunity to return to a reasonable lifestyle once I've recovered enough to do so.

    8. Re:You're deliberately twisting my words by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Ah, Canadian. That explains a lot.

      In terms of percentages, people earning $1M or higher pay 19.3% of taxes under the old law and 19.8% of taxes under the new tax law. If you look across all income categories, they pretty much either stay the same or become more progressive (i.e. the poorer pay less of a percentage of total income taxes), but don't let the facts interrupt your diatribe. (By talking only about tax rates, you're leaving out the impact of marginal rates as well as the other changes contained in the law, such as higher standard deductions and lower deductions for state taxes paid by richer people).

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  16. Standard business practice. by Charcharodon · · Score: 1

    At any given time in a large company 10-20% either don't have a job, or are underperformers. Companies that do not regularly purge this dead weight will basically turn into a typical government agency (30-40% dead weight) and go bankrupt shortly there after.

    To act like this is some evil activity to fuck over the little guy is a level of stupid only found in academia (60-75% dead weight)

  17. Short version: by cirby · · Score: 1

    "People aren't buying as many satellite dishes as we'd planned."

  18. AT&T by ohgary · · Score: 0

    AT&T has been firing people to look good on the books since divestiture forced them to compete with MCI.

  19. LMFAO 0.55% AT&T employees is "Large Numbers" by bigmacx · · Score: 1

    This article is laughable. Large companies are constantly, every single day, laying off employees somewhere, someplace. And if they are a growing company, as most successful companies are, they actually add more employees than they lay off. AT&T has 273,000 employees total and laying off 600+700+215 equates to 0.55% of their total workforce and no where near any definition of a "large number" of employees.

    Cry me a River, snowflakes.

    Any which way you measure it, the US economy is booming and every one of us willing to work is benefiting.

  20. idiots are idoits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cry me a River, snowflakes.

    yeah 1000 people out of work is NOTHING! Literally NOTHING! Nobody is harmed, nobody will suffer

    1. Re: idiots are idoits by kenh · · Score: 1

      A thousand out f 200,000 is a tiny percentage, and a number of them are being offered other jobs within the company.

      GE famously cut the bottom 1% of employee's each year, twice as many (by percentage) as this one-time AT&T cut - I don't remember the economy collapsing after those ANNUAL terminations.

      --
      Ken
    2. Re:idiots are idoits by bigmacx · · Score: 1

      Coward

  21. Re: Will you just rename the site already by kenh · · Score: 1

    besides being factual

    Oh, if only it was...

    AT&T is shedding 600 employees, not 'thousands' - does anyone at /. even read the title before publishing a post?

    Six hundred employees out of 200,000 is what, about 3/10th of one percent of their workforce.

    --
    Ken
  22. So-called Republicans are like that by shanen · · Score: 1

    Just adding my firsthand experience at AMD. I was working there in 1988 during the presidential campaign. There were lots of rumors that the company was in trouble and needed to start laying people off, but...

    The owner of the company was a big supporter of Poppy Bush. Lots of "Don't worry, be happy" messages were distributed.

    After the election and Poppy's victory, the message changed. "Off with their heads."

    I actually survived those cuts, but the rise of Quayle contributed strongly to my decision to leave the country. Things got much worse after that.

    Honest Abe Lincoln would NEVER believe what today's Republican Party has become. Liars and hypocrites with a smattering of fools. My only question now is how much blame to give the Dixiecrats when they switched to the GOP. Maybe Nixon and Dubya deserve less blame?

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    1. Re:So-called Republicans are like that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My only question now is how much blame to give the Dixiecrats

      They didn't switch in a vacuum. They were welcomed by those already like them. The spirit of the "party of lincoln" died soon after the civil war because the republicans had their hands so completely on the levers of power they got addicted to lucrative corporate welfare. So within a decade or so they stopped giving a damn about civil rights because there weren't any juicy government contracts in it.

    2. Re:So-called Republicans are like that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "" Honest Abe Lincoln would NEVER believe what today's Republican Party has become. ""

      Your absolutely correct as Lincoln was the grandfather of the modern progressive neo-liberal. His "Republican Party" was not a conservative party at time.

      He was the death of the Republic and the fall into Democracy which the founders forewarned was the death of the country.

  23. The season of giving (employees the finger) by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    AT&T and DirecTV gave layoff notices to a large number of landline, legacy service, and home installers spanning the country ...
    the company was giving $1,000 bonuses to 200,000 employees in commemoration of the tax overhaul ...

    Apparently those bonuses will be in lieu of paychecks. Sounds like a win-win for corporations and politicians.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  24. The important thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that there was no collusion. And even if there was collusion, collusion isn't illegal. Many people are saying it.

  25. Raise your hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Raise your hand I’d you are honestly surprised by this. Also raise your hand if you don’t think the board of directors will be patting themselves on the back about this at the next meeting and award themselves bonuses that are equal to, or greater than, the reduction in operating expenses from laying all those people off.

    Generally speaking, I’m in favor of not giving shareholders any say in how a company is run, other than choosing to invest their money elsewhere, but talk about a conflict of interest. If you could decide to give yourself a bonus and/or raise any time you thought you accomplished something noteworthy at work, wouldn’t you do it? Shareholders could be a means of policing the company and keeping their priorities on the business, not top executives lining their own pockets as much as possible before the music starts up and the game of musical chairs begins again and they move on to another company.

  26. "Guaranteed Jobs" by IonOtter · · Score: 1

    I love that one. It's right up there with "trickle-down economics" and "tree pollution."

    Here's how that works:

    1. You work for MegaCorp in City A. You've lived here for 10 years. You're settled in, and around 40 on the age scale, with a wife and two kids.

    2. You're told you're going to be laid off, but they have a job for you in City R, some 700 miles away. The job is yours, if you're willing to move. They'll even give you a moving incentive? But no raise.

    3. You pull up stakes, pack up your family, put your house on the market, and move to City R. After a few months on the market, your house in City A sells for around the asking price. However, you didn't break even with the purchase in City R, so you're back in the hole for a mortgage.

    4. You've been in City R for a year and a half, now. The economy is okay, things are doing well, and your department is doing well. But somebody in the upper echelons isn't happy with their profits, and decides to shut down all operations in City R.

    5. Everyone in City R is offered a job in City X, which is only 500 miles away this time.

    You now have a choice:

    1. Take a chance on MegaCorp's offer of a job in City X. However, you aren't going to get a raise. But they *do* promise -verbally- that there won't be any layoffs for a year. And you have to repeat steps 2 and 3, with no guarantee that you won't have to repeat 4 and 5 in another year.

    2. Take whatever severance package they offer, and bail. However, you're now at the high-end of where age discrimination gets serious, and your prospects are slim at best.

    And the best part of this pretty little operation? The silver lining that only those at the top get to enjoy?

    It completely eliminates three entire classes of workers.

    1. It eliminates anyone with a family.
    2. It eliminates anyone that can't move on 30 days notice.
    3. It eliminates anyone who isn't willing to work for slave wages.

    It's a formula that has worked every time.

    --
    [End Of Line]
  27. Re: Will you just rename the site already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    600..And where do you get those #'s from=. Originally it was upward sof 4600 from 4th Qtr and 1st qtr 2018 alone
    http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATTs-Holiday-Layoffs-Greater-Than-Originally-Reported-140960

  28. 550+ Layoffs at Carrier Plant 'saved' by Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember that Carrier plant that Trump gave $7 million in tax dollars too? Less than a year later they are laying off 550+ employees. It would have been closer to 625 except a bunch of people did self-layoffs because they saw the writing on the wall.

  29. General by myblogging16 · · Score: 1

    Nice articles . Free Job Alert

  30. Re:LMFAO 0.55% AT&T employees is "Large Number by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make up your mind Putin. Either you want people to have jobs or not.

  31. Not for Trump, but this is extremely stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Landlines are old bro and it's a dying technology, so why wouldn't they lay people off in that area and hire in more important areas?

    Not a Trump fan, but embarrassed by people trying to use stupidity to prove some kind of political point.
    Let Trump destroy himself for real and legit, there is no need to try to do your best to make stuff up.

  32. Not a sustainable situation by ErichTheRed · · Score: 1

    I see a lot of commenters crowing about how much more value they deliver than the people who got laid off. Pretty soon, the axe is coming for everyone who isn't an executive as companies figure out a way to automate or eliminate work done by people altogether. That's the big long-term thing we have to worry about.

    I guess I'm one of those people who want a corporate class that's more loyal toward their employees. It was only a few decades ago that people didn't have to hop from job to job every few years, uprooting their families and dealing with uncertainty.

    If I were running things, i think I'd concentrate tax reform on efforts that made it difficult to get rid of employees. Similar to the way the tax code used to encourage home ownership for individuals, it can be done with companies as well. make it so that retaining and paying employees is cheaper tax-wise than retaining the extra earnings you'd keep from firing them. I'm sure everyone will say this is a make-work program, but this is what we need. Unless we're willing to give up money as a store of value, those that can't produce at the same levels as others will revolt against those that can.

    1. Re:Not a sustainable situation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call these companies "Toga Companies" after the Togas Management (Especially marketing) wore in some of the Dilbert comic strips.

      The problem I see is: Who is going to buy the products the Toga Companies produce if they have no money?

      Will the vote be taken away from the citizens if they try to vote out the puppets of the finance class?

      If we lose the right to vote, are the chronically jobless going to be culled as they might be viewed as parasites who contribute nothing to the Finance Class?

      Right now, the Finance Class is firmly in control. They won't be removed without a protracted fight. It's going to be interesting to see if meaningful reform of this can occur without spilling blood.

  33. service? what a joke by NikeHerc · · Score: 1

    From the summary: On a bright note: their service really couldn't get much worse?

    The noise on my land line got worse and worse. I called ATT, they sent out an idiot. I explained the problem; the idiot says, "You probably have a little short." Needless to say the idiot couldn't fix the problem. I canceled my land line and haven't missed it, especially the endless sales calls, most of which had faked originating phone numbers.

    --
    Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
  34. Dying businesses don't need employees by biggaijin · · Score: 1

    The landline phone business and cable TV businesses are both dying. I cut the cable a couple years ago for my TV. When I traded my landline for an IP phone about seven years ago, I discovered that I was almost the last among my Silicon Valley co-workers to do it. The Republican tax plan doesn't have anything to do with this; it is just the dying gasp of a couple obsolete businesses.

    1. Re:Dying businesses don't need employees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The landline phone business and cable TV businesses are both dying. I cut the cable a couple years ago for my TV. When I traded my landline for an IP phone about seven years ago, I discovered that I was almost the last among my Silicon Valley co-workers to do it. The Republican tax plan doesn't have anything to do with this; it is just the dying gasp of a couple obsolete businesses.

      +1

      Accurate Comment

      I have heard that the numbers of people streaming content are still going up.

      Some of those people never had cable TV and some are moving away from satellite TV probably because both of those services do not allow you to pick & choose the channels you want in your package.

      I think that is one of the reasons that sites like Hulu and Netflix are popular; you pay to access the entire site and watch what you want to watch.

      Another reason why streaming is probably more and more popular: people "on the move" have access to higher speed wireless services, both cellular and Wi-Fi, in more places than ever.

  35. Layoff is unrelated by Manuka · · Score: 1

    What would laying off wireline and other legacy installers have to do with the Time Warner acquisition? What would it have to do with anything other than, I dunno, LEGACY TELCO STUFF IS DYING.

  36. Re: Will you just rename the site already by drawfour · · Score: 1
    Did you read the article it linked to? I'm guessing not... Here you go:

    On Dec. 16, about 600 employees were notified of the pending layoffs. Most of those were across mid-west states, with some of those including higher-skilled workers. Other layoffs by the company include "more than 700" DirectTV home installers across the country. Additionally, in December, AT&T fired 215 technicians in "nine Southern states" according to the New York Post, with another 700 reportedly coming in Texas and Missouri in February.

  37. Re:service? what a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe then you should have fixed it yourself....idiot.