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?

43 of 105 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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 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%)"

    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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.

    6. 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."

  4. 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.
  5. 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.

  6. 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 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
    2. 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
    3. 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~
    4. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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?

  9. 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/
  10. 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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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.
  11. 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)

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

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

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. 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. . . .
  19. Re:idiots are idoits by bigmacx · · Score: 1

    Coward

  20. "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]
  21. General by myblogging16 · · Score: 1

    Nice articles . Free Job Alert

  22. 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.

  23. 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.
  24. 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.

  25. 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
  26. 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.

  27. 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.