Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

AT&T Preps For New Layoffs Despite Billions In Tax Breaks and Regulatory Favors (vice.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the surprise-surprise dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: AT&T is preparing for yet another significant round of layoffs according to internal documents obtained by Motherboard. The staff reductions come despite billions in tax breaks and regulatory favors AT&T promised would dramatically boost both investment and job creation. A source at AT&T who asked to remain anonymous because they were not authorized to speak publicly told Motherboard that company leadership is planning what it's calling a "geographic rationalization" and employment "surplus" reduction that will consolidate some aspects of AT&T operations in 10 major operational hubs in New York, California, Texas, New Jersey, Washington State, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, and Washington, DC. A spokesperson for AT&T confirmed to Motherboard that it is planning to "adjust" its workforce.

While AT&T has yet to come up with a final, formal internal tally for this new round of looming layoffs, AT&T employees worry the staff reductions could prove to be significant, especially outside of these core areas. Managers are being briefed on the plans now, though AT&T isn't expected to formally announce the specifics until they're finalized later this month. The staff reductions were first announced in an internal memo sent to managers last Friday by Jeff McElfresh, President, Technology & Operations at AT&T. This news comes in the wake of AT&T receiving a $20 billion windfall last quarter courtesy of the Trump administration tax breaks. That's in addition to the friendlier environment AT&T finds itself in as a result of the Trump administration's assault on consumer protections ranging from net neutrality to broadband privacy guidelines. "To win in this new world, we must continue to lower costs and keep getting faster, leaner, and more agile," McElfresh told employees. "This includes reductions in our organization, and others across the company, which will begin later this month and take place over several months."

92 of 180 comments (clear)

  1. Just say "No" to Trump 2020. by SeaFox · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't think we can take much more of this winning.

    1. Re:Just say "No" to Trump 2020. by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

      better health insurance for less money. Yes some people did pay less and others had to pay more for REAL health insurance vs some of the old junk plans.

    2. Re:Just say "No" to Trump 2020. by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obamacare brought healthcare to millions of people.
      Trump's "Tax Reform" enriched himself and a few of his his billionaire buddies.
      So yeah. A little different.

    3. Re:Just say "No" to Trump 2020. by spongman · · Score: 1, Insightful

      no, health insurance costs did not rise after the ACA. some 'budget' plans which were basically scams were dropped, and health provider costs _continued_ to rise as they had been for years before ACA.

    4. Re:Just say "No" to Trump 2020. by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, "Tax Reform" under Trump did manage to close loopholes that allowed teachers to write off school supplies. For opponents of "Big Teach" this could be considered a big win.

    5. Re:Just say "No" to Trump 2020. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Prove your argument;

      https://ballotpedia.org/Health_insurance_premiums_before_and_after_the_Affordable_Care_Act

    6. Re: Just say "No" to Trump 2020. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      My health and body got worse under Obama. I feel like his Presidency aged me eight years. We are all closer to death because of it.

    7. Re:Just say "No" to Trump 2020. by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Umm, no it didn't, The Affordable Care Act required people to PURCHASE HEALTH INSURANCE. People still go bankrupt due to medical expenses. People still do not have access to affordable healthcare. Even with health insurance plans (which most of them have high deductibles) people still do not go to the doctor because they cannot afford it.

    8. Re: Just say "No" to Trump 2020. by flatulus · · Score: 1, Funny

      OMG - Me too!!!

      By contrast, while my health and body have gotten worse under Trump, I only feel like his Presidency has aged me two years. That's quite a contrast from the Obama legacy!

    9. Re:Just say "No" to Trump 2020. by larkost · · Score: 1

      Being completely honest about this: yes health insurance costs did rise after the ACA. But the much more important point is that the rate of that rise was significantly lower than it had been before that, and even more significantly less than had been predicted before the ACA. That holds true even if you factor in the expected decline in health care expenditure due to the recession (people spend less on everything, including healthcare, so you have to handicap for that).

      There are also a bunch of places where the ACA is clearly a win, financially, for consumers who were already paying for health insurance:
      - Ended the lifetime maximums that bankrupted almost anyone who had serious long-term problems (e.g. cancer that does not kill you quickly, or a car crash)
      - Got rid of the "junk" insurance plans that covered very little and had surprisingly low maximums
      - Put a limit on the percent of revenues insurance companies could take as profit/executive pay to 20% (that still seems ridiculously high to me)... and a lot of companies were far exceeding that, especially the ones sellin "junk" plans.
      - Pushed hospitals hard (through Medicare reimbursements) to work to control patient readmissions (where someone has to come right back in because the hospital screwed up). This was a surprisingly large source of costs.

      So the simple answer as to whether the ACA saved money on the whole is clearly: Yes. However, people can be misleading by focusing on a simple rise in the costs.

    10. Re:Just say "No" to Trump 2020. by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      Thank God we've stopped teachers from writing off school supplies to help children of low income parents. I also hope they've reduced those onerous fines of $75 at the coal mines for not having an oxygen tank handy when someone takes it upon themselves to goof off and have a collapse and a lack of clean air.

      The more we can clamp down on the excesses of the working poor, the more we can upgrade the quality of the single malt scotch.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    11. Re:Just say "No" to Trump 2020. by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      Obviously no sane person considers hampering education to be a big win but the real world is more complicated than just the immediate and obvious kneejerk.

      There is a great reason to close these loopholes, doing so makes the current broken and horrible model of forcing teachers to buy these supplies untenable and will ultimately force it to change... unless some idiot steps in and reinstates these tax breaks in time for things to resume, business as usual. Sometimes you have to endure hardships or do something that makes things worse to bring out a better end result.

    12. Re:Just say "No" to Trump 2020. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Before Obamacare people would lose also their insurance and have difficulty replacing it. Obamacare did not suddenlly make this a thing. For any political stance here you can pick out a handful of case stories that "prove" that side is right, but that's a stupid way to deciding if it worked well or not. You have to look at the whole aggregate of the country, not just a story about your Uncle Fred.

    13. Re: Just say "No" to Trump 2020. by spongman · · Score: 1

      no. it wasn't.

    14. Re:Just say "No" to Trump 2020. by spongman · · Score: 1

      nobody lost good insurance.

    15. Re:Just say "No" to Trump 2020. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      This is a pretty good argument that both were bad moves. Is that what you're arguing? Trying to impose privatized socialized medicine is just a big mess of an idea and should never have been pushed forward. Single payer wouldn't have prevented all of the mess, but it can't have been as bad as what we got.

      Most of the "growth" that the economy has shown were just big moves by big corps for show to help prop up the idea that the tax cuts were a good idea - just so that they can keep them. Nothing has cost them more than the tax cuts have gained them.

  2. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  3. Mammoth Debt... by Darkling-MHCN · · Score: 4, Informative

    The poster fails to mention the $180B debt that at & t currently has and that as interest rates rise there's a substantial risk that the company could go bankrupt and need a bail out. They've already publicly committed to reducing their debt load by $20B in 2019. They'll probably need to do a lot more to survive the next big credit crunch.

    1. Re:Mammoth Debt... by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bail out? Nah, the country would be way better off if we just auctioned off their assets to smaller companies would would take their place instead of subsidizing their bad behavior.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    2. Re:Mammoth Debt... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, AT&T was already subjected to that fate, but then the parts seem to have reassembled themselves like the liquid metal robot from Terminator 2.

    3. Re: Mammoth Debt... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The T1000 has nothing on the monopolized market convergence lead to by capitalism, then stagnated by cronyism.

    4. Re:Mammoth Debt... by imperious_rex · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I agree. I checked their balance sheet for 2017 on Yahoo Finance (ticker symbol "T") and their current ratio is almost 1:1 (current assets to current liabilities). That's not good. A reasonably healthy company should have a current ratio of 2:1 or better. Somebody at AT&T has been abusing the company credit card. Too bad it's the rank and file employees who will suffer the pain of managment's ineptitude.

    5. Re:Mammoth Debt... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, AT&T was already subjected to that fate

      The AT&T that was broken up in 1984 was a DIFFERENT COMPANY.

      SBC bought the rights to the AT&T brand and logo in 2005.

      The heart of the original AT&T became Lucent Technologies, and then later Alcatel-Lucent, and I believe they are now part of Nokia.

    6. Re:Mammoth Debt... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, it's far more complicated than you represent. Lucent was only one blob spit out from what remained of the core post-breakup AT&T telecommunications company, which itself executed many other acquisitions and spinoffs before SBC bought them (the whole company, not just their name). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    7. Re:Mammoth Debt... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Well, AT&T was already subjected to that fate, but then the parts seem to have reassembled themselves like the liquid metal robot from Terminator 2.

      I was thinking more like 80s cartoon robots :)

    8. Re:Mammoth Debt... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      AT&T has 250,000 employees. If they fail:

      • The bankruptcy filing will cancel common stock and shield them from debts;
      • Many creditors will get nothing, or take a loss;
      • The big preferred-stock shareholders may be legally-entitled to a pay-out;
      • Executives walk off with whatever golden parachutes and existing compensation they've already received;
      • The employees will become unemployed.

      The last two aren't interchangeable: executive mega-bonuses of a hundred million dollars divide up to around $400 per employee. These employees make thousands per month.

      Because of the efficiency of concentration of production, the shock will cause a demand reduction in concentrated areas where AT&T employs people. That will reduce the revenues of other businesses, eliminating the need for and the capacity to pay a number of employees. This cycles fractionally, eventually creating a multiplier of the original damage.

      That, in turn, means several local areas will face high poverty and unemployment, resulting in crime, higher operating costs, and failures of local businesses. This causes more unemployment, and further reduces liquidity and money in the local area, increasing localized recessions.

      In the end, even if the executives get zero bonuses, the employees get boned--and so do millions of people who don't even work for AT&T. Meanwhile the customers have to move to Verizon or T-Mobile, and we have to wait for the economy to turn over. These companies have localized operations in different geographical locations, and so the people who lose their jobs to AT&T's collapse may not be picked up by the recovery.

      This is why we have bail-outs.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    9. Re: Mammoth Debt... by Shotgun · · Score: 2

      Because it isn't the same. Cronyism is getting the politicians to pass laws to rig the market in your favor. Capitalism is creating a better mousetrap so that customer's choose your product over the competitors.

      Cronyism is indirect socialism, in that political favors take the place of consumer choice.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    10. Re: Mammoth Debt... by larkost · · Score: 1

      Cronyism is not socialism. Socialism is when the state controls the "means of production" (a.k.a. Capital), nominally for the betterment of all.

      Cronyism is when individuals capture the power of the state to benefit themselves personally (and their associates... or cronies). Cronyism can me present in all forms of government that humans have yet tried. But the one most associated with it is Feudalism, where it is hard not to have it.

    11. Re:Mammoth Debt... by rkhalloran · · Score: 1

      Lucent is best mapped to the legacy Western Electric (manufacturing arm), AT&T kept the legacy landline LD service, Bell Labs and the quickly-defunct Computer Systems Group. The seven Regional Operating Companies went through M&A in the 90s/00s leaving Southwest Bell/SBC swallowing up Pac Bell, Ameritech and finally Bellsouth, picking up the rump AT&T operation in the process and taking Mother's name. Nynex & Bell Atlantic picked up the remnants of MCI Worldcom & became Verizon. Mountain Bell -> US West was bought out by Qwest during the dot-bubble and is now CenturyLink. New-AT&T and Verizon are each now major wireless providers. The current regulatory environment is not conducive to anything similar to the 80s breakup of the original Bell System. There'd have to be some major consumer fubar (serious service outage/security exposure) to trigger a repeat.

    12. Re: Mammoth Debt... by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      I've personally worked on tracing the stock when it was broken up to today, for cost basis reasons.
      I can tell you that some of the same people and assets came right back together again. It was like a vampire that was nearly dead but came back to life.

      --
      -
  4. Economucks by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    They put the "down" in trickle-down.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  5. Manpower is never planned on tax breaks by Elfich47 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Companies never plan their manpower needs based on tax breaks and incentives. Companies look at the work that needs to get done, the money they have, they billing they expect and from there decide how much manpower they need. These companies are not going to hire people to sit on their thumbs doing nothing. So if they have to much manpower, they layoff. Government tax breaks are not going to affect this process.

    --
    Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
    1. Re:Manpower is never planned on tax breaks by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Companies look at the work that needs to get done, the money they have, they billing they expect and from there decide how much manpower they need. These companies are not going to hire people to sit on their thumbs doing nothing. So if they have to much manpower, they layoff.

      I just have to ask if you were able to keep a straight face when you wrote this or did you just leave college?

      Somewhere along the chain of command, usually multiple levels, a managers power and/or renumeration depends on the number of projects or people that report to them. This leads to a survival of the fittest environment within the company with each manager looking to scoop up the next upcoming project along with the associated resources. Or, as in one company I was contracting at, where the number of people reporting to a manager determined their level, the manager just went out and hired butts to put on seats in order to give himself a promotion. Never mind thane of the new hires was a fresh out of university software engineer who couldn't actually turn on the computer when I asker them to. (So I guess you have done that step with the network people that I need done. Thanks.)

      And groupings of people get turned into silos where you don't want the system administrator to look at the networking stuff or the database stuff because it might step on their toes even though it might save them some time and effort.

    2. Re:Manpower is never planned on tax breaks by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Actually, gov tax breaks CAN increase hiring. However, if you remember the write-ups on it, The GOP gave bigger tax breaks for OFF-SHORE work, not on-shore. Want jobs to remain in America? THen we need to do the same thing as other nations and apply taxes preferentially to local work.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re: Manpower is never planned on tax breaks by ranton · · Score: 1

      You should tell the republicans that passed sweeping ridiculous tax rates for businesses under that premise then. When a multi-billion dollar company and multi-million/billionaires have effective tax rates lower than mine, something is broken.

      The politicians know it is bullshit, as most of them are at least reasonably educated. It's the voters they pander to to get elected who need to learn this.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    4. Re:Manpower is never planned on tax breaks by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Except none of what is going on here has anything to do with "enough people". The layoffs are monetarily motivated. The corp needs more money to finance its debt and will get it by laying people off. Whether or not those people were needed for anything is not of concern. If they were needed, the corp will "suffer" until it has enough money to hire people again. If they were not needed, then BONUS! They also got rid of dead weight... but again, that is not why any of this occurring.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  6. Re:Just say "No" to government. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    When you take money from people against their will, you're going to allocate it badly.

    Leave people alone.

    That is not the lesson.

    I think the lesson is more like, "Don't elect worshippers of Bullshit Mountain." Right now its more a republican thing, with of course the master bullshitter. It certainly doesn't have to be though, so be wary. Of course I also recommend not encouraging them to reproduce, but that is another matter.

    AT&T lying should surprise no one. The government probably doing jack shit as the result, should of course surprise no one, which is a shame. A competent government would give them the corporate death sentence, and force every member of the board of directors to never be allowed to serve on a similar board again.

    Government is supposed to, among other things, address cases where the free market is ill serving the people. The carcass of AT&T could be absorbed by others, with the likely result being better service for all, eventually. If we have to break AT&T into little pieces every ten years, well, I'm fine with that.

  7. Re:Just say "No" to government. by sdinfoserv · · Score: 2

    Services people demand... police / fire protection / schools / roads / not getting shot/mugged every-time you walk out the door / building standards so homes don't cave in on in a windstorm, employment regulations to not allow workers or minors chained to desks for 18 hours a day with no toilet breaks, or locked fire escapes that kill everyone in a fire - all those "pesky" regulations that businesses if left to themselves just wouldn't do in the name of profit are all regulated and administered by a "Government". Because arsewipes like you see zero value in educating the youth and would prefer them to grow to be uneducated, unemployable criminals who rob. .... but then we were there as a nation and that's why we need a government And those things cost money.

  8. Re:DirecTV by Kohath · · Score: 1

    AT&T should either have laid these people off long ago and finally clued in to the shareholder money they've been wasting all this while, or they're pulling a stunt. I know where I'd put my money.

    Companies don't lay off 1000s of people to "pull a stunt".

  9. Re:Agile...agile.... by sdinfoserv · · Score: 2

    Agile... when you don't want to waste the time or money doing a needs analysis, system sizing or process documentation - which leads to the need to redo over and over and over (aka "sprints") 'cause it never gets done right..

  10. Re: Molopony on phacts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They used to call it off-shoring. That must not have been obscure enough anymore.

  11. Re: Moscow Donald Preps for Prison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ok.

    shlorpshlorpshlorpshlorpshlorpOH PAPI

    Now, hand over that address

  12. Re: Molopony on phacts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I think itâ(TM)s quite clear that we as a society are a bunch of fucktards and doomed to return to feudalism

  13. Debt debt debt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Second time in a month that /. fails to think finances when it comes to corporate layoffs.

    - AT&T and other large companies borrowed large sums at low interest rates over the last few years for stock buybacks.
    - 2019 is a year with ~20 billion debt due for AT&T and little hope of refinancing it at rates anywhere near the current rate paid.
    - AT&T is rated just above junk status and a balance sheet slip would put it into junk status and drastically raise the cost to finance dept.
    - And many bond covenants have stipulations that the principle is paid faster if the company goes from investment grade rating to junk rating.

    It's easy to look at via FINRA how the company debt vs maturity is trading versus risk free US Treasury issues of similar maturity and coupon rates. Trading at rates well above treasuries is a sign that the bond market thinks the company balance sheet is in poor standing.

    A credit event like Long Term Capital Management, Lehman Brothers, etc would raise borrowing costs to 9% or higher per year and make it nearly impossible for AT&T to refinance its outstanding debt. Thus bankruptcy and likely like GM get bailed out by the US taxpayer with the nice for AT&T benefit of shifting its unfunded pension liabilities to the government run PBGC.

    The credit event would sink stocks and nearly all bonds except for US Treasury bonds; slow the economy, hurt free cash flow, .....

    1. Re:Debt debt debt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      ... fails to think finances ...

      No, we're thinking that management should be dismissed too. It's unfair to sacrifice the front line so managers can repeat their mistakes.

    2. Re:Debt debt debt by dryeo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps they shouldn't have borrowed money for stock buybacks. Wasn't that illegal not long ago?

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    3. Re:Debt debt debt by packrat0x · · Score: 1

      Their landline division has state granted monopolies in most of the USA. They legally have no landline competition within these areas, and they are losing most of these customers to death by old age.

         

      --
      227-3517
  14. Good. by Fatmiko1 · · Score: 1

    Good. There are WAY too many people involved in this company that don't know how to operate in customer service. I'm convinced that no one in the company actually knows anyone else in the company. This exists on multiple levels, consumer/cell/business/fiber. Flashlights wouldn't help them finding their way through an email chain. It's embarrassing that one of the biggest companies in the world can't operate efficiently, OR provide their customers with a quality product, OR provide their customers with additional service to meet the demand (at full price, I'm not even trying to negotiate down here). Washed up, no clue, deal with it. They need a come to Jesus moment. It's unfortunate that they have such a stranglehold on the amount of markets that they do. Hell, their flagship consumer stores don't even answer the phone. This is a telecommunications company....

  15. Re:Molopony on phacts by macraig · · Score: 1

    ... are just too stupid to keep falling for this over and over again.

    So stupidity is the solution to avoiding that repeat behavior? Good to know.

  16. Re:Moscow Donald Preps for Prison by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    $10,000 cash reward for the above person's real name and home address.

    No questions asked.

    Melania Trump, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington DC, 37188

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  17. AT&T Sucks by phalse+phace · · Score: 1

    The staff reductions come despite billions in tax breaks and regulatory favors AT&T promised would dramatically boost both investment and job creation.

    I guess my area will never get U-verse. It's been over 10 years and I keep receiving advertisements for their U-verse service.

    But the best service I can get is their DSL at 6 Mbps for $40/mo.

  18. Re:DirecTV by spongman · · Score: 1

    yeah, 'cos obviously the tax bill wasn't intended to, you know, actually help US workers.

    no. these layoffs are just another example of President Dump's 'winning' economy. he has the best numbers, you know?

  19. Re:DirecTV by spongman · · Score: 1

    yup, that's why super high unemployment is widely regarded as a positive sign for a 'winning' economy!!

  20. Executive Bonuses all around! by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    Nice work by our Executive Capital Concentration and RIF-Bitch Realization Team. Bonuses for everyone. And remember to show that dour "gloom-and-doom" face for the media.

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  21. Yo Yo by no-body · · Score: 1

    The everlasting, yet to discover virus residing in human brains causing the never ending urge to collect $$'s or other considered wealth and power items - long list here omitted - by creating imaginary voids of various kinds to urgently fill without actual need and then to create more voids since it was futile as always requires probably extremely consequent and strong characters - is this Miller-something a type like that - anyway, time to hit the sack!

  22. Re:DirecTV by dryeo · · Score: 1

    I don't know about AT&T but if they're anything like my local Telco, they should be hiring people. Wind storm the other week wiped out most of the electric grid, Hydro had it fixed pretty quick, 3 days here, a couple of weeks in the more remote locations. Copper thieves hit here, a couple of days to restore service, and it's not like we had cell for backup. The other week they were telling people end of February before land lines or cell service restored.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  23. Of course they are! by Chas · · Score: 1

    Any excuse to maximize their bottom line!

    Stupid cocksuckers...

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Of course they are! by Chas · · Score: 1

      You're right.

      Please forgive me my tresspass!

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
  24. Re: Nope. I meant those "basic" services, too. by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

    What's your alternative plan?

  25. Why not move out of NY and Washington DC? by Bruce66423 · · Score: 1

    A disappointing feature is the decision to concentrate there rather than to focus away from the overly expensive areas of NY and DC. This would help spread prosperity to other parts of the country.

  26. Re: Nope. I meant those "basic" services, too. by reiterate · · Score: 1

    Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.

  27. Re:Moscow Donald Preps for Prison by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    $10,000 cash reward for the above person's real name and home address.

    No questions asked.

    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500

    Now, where's my cash?

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  28. Re:Nope. I meant those "basic" services, too. by stealth_finger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Move to other countries until you desire governance again. There are plenty of places you can find zero government intrusion into your life. Stop whining, get moving.

    I hear Somalia is nice this time of year.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  29. Nope, not actually the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The problem is that power will not let you complain about this. You will be a radical, a communist, a know-nothing idiot who wants us back in the stone age or to give all your wealth to you, you greedy bastard....

    The rhetoric is force fed to society. Same reason why society is "too stupid" to stop falling for religious woo (see the new agism bollocks, replacing christianity for those who find society able to let them stop falling for *christianity*, just not for woo "explanations").

    It isn't that society is TOO STUPID, it's that the power structure is forcing a propaganda war to stop you complaining.

    So you will blame the left, the right, the immigrants, the managers, the patriarchy, the SJWs, the blacks, the chinese, ANYONE but those who are running the propaganda because in a capitalist society money means power, so you cannot fight those with money, you cannot BLAME those with money. So you have to blame it on some other identifiable group. ANY group.

    And, having misdiagnosed the problem, any fixes done to that problem will not fix the actual issue, and so it spirals out of control and we "fall for it again".

    1. Re:Nope, not actually the problem by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 2

      The problem is that power will not let you complain about this. You will be a radical, a communist, a know-nothing idiot who wants us back in the stone age or to give all your wealth to you, you greedy bastard....

      The rhetoric is force fed to society. Same reason why society is "too stupid" to stop falling for religious woo (see the new agism bollocks, replacing christianity for those who find society able to let them stop falling for *christianity*, just not for woo "explanations").

      It isn't that society is TOO STUPID, it's that the power structure is forcing a propaganda war to stop you complaining.

      So you will blame the left, the right, the immigrants, the managers, the patriarchy, the SJWs, the blacks, the chinese, ANYONE but those who are running the propaganda because in a capitalist society money means power, so you cannot fight those with money, you cannot BLAME those with money. So you have to blame it on some other identifiable group. ANY group.

      And, having misdiagnosed the problem, any fixes done to that problem will not fix the actual issue, and so it spirals out of control and we "fall for it again".

      Although I'm not a liberal I think one of the greatest slogans in recent times is "we are the 99%". I suspect that you like that notion too. However the 99% includes a great many Christians, a majority of white people, SJWs, both AntiFa and Nazis, and just about everything else under the sun. I don't like everyone in that mix however I have to put my dislike aside if the notion of stopping the 1% from taking everything is to be achieved. I mention this because the sooner we can keep the 1% from dividing us the sooner we can get some economic justice. So if you want to not 'fall for it again' stop making fun of Christians and keep your eye on the ball of economic justice. Neither the R nor D party in it's current form will get us there, so there's a lot of work to do.

    2. Re:Nope, not actually the problem by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      Agreed with you and the GP but isn't the 1%, the 1% includes the top end professions which work their asses off to overachieve like engineers, doctors, lawyers (jokes aside), yes even middle management and sales people.

      There are over 300,000,000 people in this country, using a value of 100th's is all about masking out the real divisions. The 1% are only part of the problem in that they are overtaxed and punished. They include all the people who really did work harder and earn their place looking at all the slackers around them. They also include the children of those who did so a few generations back.

      The issue isn't the 1%, the issue is the top 0.1% by wealth not income and those who control an equivalent amount of wealth in any corporation.

    3. Re:Nope, not actually the problem by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      Agreed with you and the GP but isn't the 1%, the 1% includes the top end professions which work their asses off to overachieve like engineers, doctors, lawyers (jokes aside), yes even middle management and sales people.

      There are over 300,000,000 people in this country, using a value of 100th's is all about masking out the real divisions. The 1% are only part of the problem in that they are overtaxed and punished. They include all the people who really did work harder and earn their place looking at all the slackers around them. They also include the children of those who did so a few generations back.

      The issue isn't the 1%, the issue is the top 0.1% by wealth not income and those who control an equivalent amount of wealth in any corporation.

      I agree with you also that 'we are the 99.5%' is probably more accurate but the simplicity of 'we are the 99%' is awesome. It would be OK to have the tax rate dependent on a mix of income and assets (ie wealth). If I were emperor for a day I'd tax the hell out of trust funds, implement a wealth tax on anything that people might actually want (ie land, housing) and let the uber rich instead spend their money bidding up non-essentials like collectibles and art, and put in a heavy handed inheritance tax. Plus I'd use the NSA to track tax cheats. That coupled with a death penalty for tax cheats >$50 million and a mere 30 day grace period to come clean. I'd have the national debt paid off in no time :-)

  30. Re: Nope. I meant those "basic" services, too. by fortfive · · Score: 1

    What do you think property is?

  31. ZERO loopholes were closed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And more loopholes were added. Ones that benefitted him because it allowed more cash to be funneled through alternatives to salary, reducing the "wage" and therefore the income tax on it.

    Try getting into reality. Even though it scares you, comforting lies just make you look like an ignorant asshole.

    1. Re:ZERO loopholes were closed. by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      It was dry sarcasm but sarcasm nonetheless.

      Really did need the /s

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    2. Re:ZERO loopholes were closed. by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      /s is now mandatory as there are people who will unironically endorse the most stupid position.

      People can't do a background check to determine sarcasm and apparently someone has a team of monkeys typing comments on Slashdote.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    3. Re:ZERO loopholes were closed. by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      No, the whoosh is still yours. You were arguing with an obviously sarcastic post:

      "Actually, "Tax Reform" under Trump did manage to close loopholes that allowed teachers to write off school supplies. For opponents of "Big Teach" this could be considered a big win."

      You were "correcting" the attitude of someone by preaching the same stance they were already taking.

    4. Re:ZERO loopholes were closed. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      "Big Teach" wasn't enough of a giveaway?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  32. AT&T is a bloated sack of decay by sabbede · · Score: 1
    I hate to say it, because people are hurt, but AT&T is a mess. It has become so big that it is rotting out from the inside. It needs to shed staff and sell off entire divisions. It is so big that it can't coordinate it's own actions. Hell, it can't even provide its own people with accurate internal phone directories. It's a phone company that doesn't know its own numbers, has 3 separate and uncoordinated TV services competing with each other, keeps gobbling up other bloated and dying companies outside it's core competency, can't provide decent support, and can't do anything in a timely fashion.

    AT&T is broken. It is too big to function. It is too big to survive.

    1. Re:AT&T is a bloated sack of decay by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps but the layoffs will do nothing to correct this. The layoffs are meant to reduce costs. By reducing costs AT&T can funnel more money to investors, as opposed to back into the company to improve operations. So no, this move is not meant to improve the business.

    2. Re:AT&T is a bloated sack of decay by sabbede · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. But that doesn't change the fact that the company is far too big and bureaucratic to operate effectively. I have a feeling though that they won't be shedding the right employees, more likely it's the ones they actually need being discarded.

  33. What AT&T is ( likely ) doing by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This entire process is about the stupid amount of debt AT&T is now holding due to the recent buying spree it has been on as of late.

    Here's a passage that isn't in the original story:

    " It's critical for us to bring employees together to increase the pace of innovation and further develop the right skills in a more open, flexible and efficient work environment. Therefore, our collaboration zones and hub cities become even more integral. "

    I read that as the whole " Office 2.0 " bullshit where your workspace is shared with everyone else. They like to claim " collaboration " but, in reality, they're just being cheap.

    " further develop the right skills " is downright laughable as AT&T considers training an expense vs an investment. This is why you have the service you do because NO ONE is trained in how to do their job anymore so everyone basically wings it as best they can. Corporate will deny it, but ask any normal employee the last time they saw any standard / formal training* in regards to how to do their job and they will likely tell you Ed Whittacre was still the CEO.

    *Some of you will question why this is needed, but remember new hardware arrives all the time. It's akin to being fluent in Cisco for years and they plop a Juniper down in front of you and say " make it work, we're shifting everything new over to Juniper ". When you put critical or customer traffic on this, it's rather important to know what you're doing. ( In my opinion anyway )

    Another thing the original story is unaware of is the fact that AT&T is looking at all the real estate it owns ( and it's quite a bit ) to determine if any given building can be shut down and sold off. Basically, if the building doesn't contain enough critical infrastructure for serving the area it resides within, there's a good chance it's on the list. If it contains just a call center, there's a good chance it's already been sold. Their real estate is worth quite a bit and is probably the most efficient method of raising capitol needed to pay down that debt.

    I say enough because there are several buildings that are already on the list to be vacated that DO contain systems that have to be moved before it can be sold. These buildings are basically regional locations where network connections across the State consolidate at the distribution layer. All of these connections have to be moved onto new architecture ( in progress ) and each location has a desired timeline for completion. We're talking hundreds and possibly thousands of sites that are fed from these locations that have to be moved. It will take a considerable amount of time ( several years ), money and people to complete.

    The problem is, if they continue to slash headcount, they're not going to have enough people left to do the work required to meet those deadlines. As it stands today, with the current headcount, those deadlines are already in trouble. Telling them this tends to fall on deaf ears. Guess they'll figure it out when the deadlines come and go.

    What tends to irk me most is:

    They keep buying shit with money they don't have. ( DirecTv / Time Warner )
    The money AT&T WASTED on the failed T-Mobile merger was ~$5B
    The money AT&T wastes on stupid shit like " Stadium Naming Rights " and the like
    An executives yearly bonus is more than a non-executive type makes their entire LIFE

    Yet, laying people off is their go to answer for saving money :|

  34. So ban stock buy backs by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    they're primarily used to boost the price so that the CEOs get a big paycheck since their bonuses are tied to (and often paid in) stock. This is _exactly_ why stock buy backs were illegal (until Reagan made them legal).

    Folks like Liz Warren and Bernie Sanders would be happy to do this if we'd give them more left wing colleges in congress. But these are "Job killing regulations" right? Except that what's really killing jobs is that we let the ruling class gamble with all the money in the country and when they go bust they come out smelling like roses.

    I don't think we can let them go bust, either. We're in a hostage situation and always will be without government oversight. We need new rules to protect jobs. To wit:

    1. Ban Stock Buy backs.
    2. Require public companies to have 50% employee representation on their board of directors or they don't get a charter (and the protections therein).
    3. Bring back Glass-Stegal.
    4. Undo Bush Jr's commodities market deregulation. Make folks who buy commodities take possession of them so they can't skim 10% off our food supply.

    There's lots more. Liz Warren has a fairly comprehensive anti-corruption law she wants to enact.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  35. Trumpy by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    Trump's economy.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  36. Somalia is a failed Communist State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Somalia is a leftist hell hole.

    Somalia was a single-party, Big Government, centrally planned State run according to "scientific" Communism.

    Naturally, it failed.

    It's not surprising that a culture based on violent coercion produced warlords to fill the power vacuum after the fall (yet again) of a communist regime.

    Nevertheless, some ancient tribal trading rules re-emerged; because they are quasi-capitalist, they've allowed the quality of life of the Somalian people to begin to rise, even surpassing the quality of life experienced by the neighboring peoples who live under "stable" governments. This includes food resources and mobile phone technology.

    1. Re:Somalia is a failed Communist State by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      So you'd prefer Haiti or Honduras as they are free-market hell holes. Got it.

      Personally, I'd prefer a socialist hell-hole like Iceland, but I'm sure they aren't taking Americans as refugees because; "Hounded by AT&T billing department" isn't enough of a tyranny for them.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  37. Aragorn's corporate code by epine · · Score: 1

    Aragorn: Show them no mercy, for you shall receive none.

    Corporations might promise the moon in exchange for tax breaks, but they'll never deliver: they are going to rationalize no matter what. If they convince you otherwise, it's because your cloudy Palantir has not yet detected the enemy's secret plan.

    Or, you're a politician and you're embedded deep in the corporate kimono already, and you're just pretending to have a myopic Palantir, but in truth cash-on-the-barrel is 20-20.

  38. Re:Moscow Donald Preps for Prison by LazarusQLong · · Score: 1

    Melania would make a much better president than the orangutan we elected to the job in 2016!

    --
    "Governments have been dominated by the corporate entities and citizens have ceased to matter in public policy" true in
  39. Why!? by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    Why are we giving huge tax breaks to corporations only for them to turn around and lay off people? The answer is a sarcastic, "Because corporations ...." More corporate wealthcare I guess.

  40. Re:Molopony on phacts by macraig · · Score: 1

    Indeed. This amusement park ride has too much momentum.

  41. Re: Just say "No" to government. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

    He probably is. This is a common Libertarian variant of the slippery slope argument - "We need to get rid of all government because ultimately if you have a government then the things you're complaining about happen therefore it isn't worth having even for the things you agree with." As evidence, look at the thread, his response and the changed subject is to someone literally just arguing that Trump is the issue.

    There is a mentality among many in the US that it's just not possible to have a decent government. The origin of this mentality is long, not worth explaining here, and goes to some pretty dark forces in the America's history. At some point though we've got to recognize that we want something out of government other than tax cuts.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  42. Re: Agile...agile.... by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

    If you need to constantly "pivot", you never understood the problem correctly to begin with

  43. Re:DirecTV by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Of course that's what naturally happens in many companies. Layoffs will happen even if a company is profitable. The issue here is that AT&T claimed it would generate more jobs if only the government could give them tax breaks. The moral here is to not believe the lies that corporations tell, especially if you're a politician, and that tax breaks won't necessarily save jobs.

  44. Re:It's not a slippery slope argument by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    A government doesn't grow organically through voluntary trade, but is instead imposed violently at the point of a gun.

    Interesting.

    Over here we elect them.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  45. Re:DirecTV by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    What you say is true, but I don't recall the Trumperor running on that basis. Or anyone else, to be fair.

    It was all about them thar chinkeys tekkin ur jerbs, wasn't it?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  46. Re:DirecTV by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    It does! Any other explanation for the fact that when companies lay people off their shares go up?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  47. Re:is it copper? by omnichad · · Score: 1

    It's even cheaper to just run fiber to a cell tower and tell everyone that's their new landline - no matter how unreliable.