CWA says AT&T's 'final offer' just isn't good enough

It's true of most corporations and in our opinion this is historically true of AT&T that executives never get touched in a lay-off. When can you remember a management purge that shared in a forced lay-off that was being imposed on the rank and file? It's a general rule that the incompetent CEO’s and executives get to completely screw up a company in every possible way before someone finally figures out that they shouldn't be left alone to manage a Seven/Eleven, never mind a multi-billion dollar company.

The solution to these screw ups are to abandon the rank and file and to lay off a good portion of the occupational workforce, outsource work overseas, demoralize the remainder of them, and have their customer satisfaction go down the tubes. This leads to a stagnant and spiraling downward-pointed share price.

When this happens, the CEO’s solution is to repeat the above but this time, give the saved executives a raise.

Finally the board and shareholders get all pissed off, buy out the CEO (which means paying them millions to vacate their office), and they head off to some other company and start screwing them over.

We tried to make sense of all this and all we could come up with for this behavior is that when corporate America discovers that if a persons moral compass is damaged and they can’t perform any useful job function, it makes that person eligible for the company to start grooming them for management

I guess the union should not have said "It stinks" about the last and final offer and rejected it before reading it. That's what you are going get now.... Have fun at your deMobilizing party this weekend.

we are in no way in any situation even close the uaw....at+t made 12.9 BILLION in clear profit in 2008!

well here it is 1227 and no strike because they just don't have the courage to fight for us so we stand and take it just like always, union never was much good now they are really proving it,

amen att reps cant trust what att will put out there for the 40% with objectives that nobody can reach...

I work in a call center. I am amazed, and appalled, about how many reps think they get to keep the same title. Or, they will still make as much, if they move to the new leveraged title. This is a ruthless company that will stop at nothing to find anything to fire you. So, when you are still making your old top pay, and they have new hires, at the new leverage title, let's see how positive the reps will be when they find out, the company doesn't want them at their currently pay. Why, oh why, would a rep truly believe that this company will retain you, as an employee, when they have reps making a base rate of $10 less an hour. I knew the call centers had a lot of reps on anti-depressants, but they, seriously, need to quit taking them long enough to realize what is about to happen to them.

"Quote from cnnmoney.com:....."On Thursday, U.S. President Barack Obama criticized as "shameful" the $18.4 billion in bonuses paid to Wall Street executives last year, even as they helped trigger the crisis"."

So what does this have to do with anything? Senior AT&T execs got no bonus. They did get huge stock option deals, but no bonus.

Posted by Anonymous | August 1, 2009 - 9:22am

Maybe you shouldn't have budgeted your lifestyle against incentives. That has always been my biggest gripe about the folks in the call centers. They perpetuate their own issues by budgeting their lifestyle with the incentive money. Bad plannng on your part does not constitute continued entitlement from the company.
-------------------------------------------------
Continue entitlement from the company? What are you talking about? These people had a set sales incentive, they met their goals to earn those incentives, and now your calling that an entitlement? What planet are you on? And now AT&T's idea of fair is take a Reps current base pay and divide it 60/40 to where only 60% is guaranteed and the other 40% is basically sales incentive money that AT&T determines how it's earned. So after the way AT&T has already changed up sales goals and incentives constantly, any time the reps actually earn what is put in front of them to earn, they expect Reps to trust them that they will have a realistic opportunity to earn back the 40% that is no longer their guaranteed salary. Yeah that makes a lot of sense? NOT!!!! I do understand the point about not budgeting your lifestyle based on incentives, but now AT&T also (based on that theory stated above) wants expects Reps to live on 40% less base pay also. Sounds like a great plan if your AT&T. Not so much if your a REP having to deal with all the crap AT&T is constantly putting their Reps through.

Quote from cnnmoney.com:....."On Thursday, U.S. President Barack Obama criticized as "shameful" the $18.4 billion in bonuses paid to Wall Street executives last year, even as they helped trigger the crisis".

Maybe you shouldn't have budgeted your lifestyle against incentives. That has always been my biggest gripe about the folks in the call centers. They perpetuate their own issues by budgeting their lifestyle with the incentive money. Bad plannng on your part does not constitute continued entitlement from the company.

People say we need to thank God we have a job. Well we do thank God for our jobs. Att needs to thank God that they made a profit 2008 and the years before. Att needs to stop exploiting the national recession as if Att is in the red. Att wants its workers to work 100% harder for 1/4 the price. An incentative check earned based on units of a certain service sold use to be an extra $800-$2000+/mo that same check is now $75-$500 and the majority of us only get $200..We did hear of $750. A job at AT&t is not like a job at Walmart. (my teenage son could work at Walmart no disrespect) When people make that statement it doesnt compare to us.. I understand a person who probably is use to making only $2000/mo would say $500 would be great. Att is a Fortune 500 company if I am not mistaken I think we were 8th on list.. (I know Walmart is too, and we all know Walmart is a crock too) Att doesnt value its workers..I use to bring home $5800 net a mo, but you better believe I worked my a#@ off. Now I bring home $3400 big damn difference. Our job is extremely stressful.. it takes special candidates who can endure the stress to survive this job. We are not asking for much. Stephenson doesnt have the stress of loosing his home or worrying if he will be able to send his kids to college. We found out 2wks before our team award bonus earned, that we were not getting it. Everyday we have to fix customer accts, that some inexperienced employee that was probably hired off the street messed up. Our customers have long wait times. By the time they get to me, they are livid. I have to lie and tell them Att values them and we appreciate their business.. what a crock... I use to brag about how much I loved my job. Now I just pray that the Fat Rats give us mice back cheese. God bless us all ..

I retired with 34 yrs. You hang in there! NO insurance Premiums!
Mr atty, If AT&T was not so obsessed with spending millions to put their name on every sports stadium from the Pacific to Atlantic, and from Canada to Mexico and even into Mexico,Or moving a sixteen ton 24 foot golden-leafed boy statue into the lobby of One Bell,maybe it would be "more affordable" to properly care for those of us who slave(ed) our hearts out keeping the company #1!
I was layed off once with 16yrs svc! Just in time for CHristmas! While in the Doc's office I saw on the cover of Forbes Mag. the then Chairman Robert Allen teeing off for the Pebble Beach golf classic,sponsored by AT&T. The prize was $100,000. In the aticle Mr Allen stated that he was looking forward to the AT&Tcompany party in Bermuda!!!! All the while saying he HAD to lay off employees.
I also have seen Mr. Ed Whitaker flying into Corsicanna in the COMPANY helicopter to visit his Mother. He also stated he just could not afford to pay benefits for the hard working heartbeat of his company Southwestern Bell! You should have seen his retirement package and his quarterly bonuses!!!
I am angry DON'T TAKE ANYTHING THEY WOULDN'T TAKE!!

Yes, I am an attorney. I agree that it would be very difficult to prove that D4 leadership was intentionally using a "bait and switch" tactic. There would have to be indirect communications by the union leadership to "inform" their members not to follow their recommendation and vote down the agreement. However, if that was their tactic, evidence of such indirect communications wouldn't be too hard to uncover during investigation. Without letting its membership know to vote down the agreement, it would risk having members approve it (assuming they were employing a “bait and switch” tactic). Since the D3 contract is about to expire, I don't see the benefit of a bait and switch tactic (just wait a couple more weeks and then strike), so I seriously doubt they would be doing it anyway. Way too risky with no real gain.

I also agree that the company engaged in bad faith bargaining by directly communicating with union members. Furthermore, that tactic was, by definition, is "bad faith bargaining". The union has every right to be angry at that move.

I am following these negotiations because it is a key milestone in the evolution of labor relations in the 21st century. Personally, I don't side with the company or the union - both are corrupt byproducts of the system. I see validity in the arguments by both sides.

I agree with the position of the union of restoring the middle class. However, the union leadership is not middle class – they are part of the executive class and are just as corrupt with their own personal agendas – just like the corrupt company executives they are bargaining with. I also agree with the union position of maintaining current benefit levels of retirees. Trying to reduce retirees’ benefits is unjustifiable, in my opinion, regardless of company cost. I also see the validity in the union’s attempts to preserve the standard of living of the workers that built at&t. The unfortunate problem is that the wireline business is going away . . . very quickly. That’s what makes these negotiations interesting. The wireline businesses everywhere are losing tons of money and companies are not investing in them at all, so the contracts being negotiated now cover jobs in a quickly dying sector of the business, which makes these negotiations very unique.

I agree with the company in its negotiation of cost sharing for healthcare. Every American corporation has been impacted with the skyrocketing costs of healthcare. While it is horrible that Americans are seeing their contributions rise dramatically, it is a symptom of a seriously broken system. We must fix the system . . . it is not the responsibility of employers to bear that increasing cost – the company has its ultimate responsibility to its shareholders to make as much money as possible by managing costs. The cost is just going to be passed along to its consumers in increased prices, otherwise. I also don’t buy the union’s argument of profitability. While at&t did fare much better than other industries during the recession, most of that is due to the iPhone and those numbers are just one component of the analysis. If you look at the cost structure of at&t, it is clear that they have serious expense issues. They are laying off thousands of their management employees (union layoffs are part of the negotiations), freezing or reducing salaries, limiting its development dollars dramatically at a time where it needs to be investing more, and losing serious money in its traditional “cash cow” of wireline. It is doing very well in the sectors of the business that has much smaller ROI. What is not being mentioned is the billions of dollars the company is having to invest in its infrastructure to compete with the cable industry and other wireless providers. From a revenue perspective, they won’t see an ROI for this investment for many years, and that could change very quickly. Most telecoms are a couple of years behind the cable companies in the development of emerging technologies and are at a high risk of losing serious money in the future if they don’t catch up. In 12-24 months, the telecoms profitability ranking could change dramatically if their strategies and investment decisions don’t pay off.

It seems like most peoples’ comments take one factor and “run with it”. Our whole society seems to take bullet points and try to base a position on incomplete arguments. For example, “look how greedy and profitable the company is that is trying to reduce our standard of living” or “we could suffer the same fate as the auto industry if we don’t dramatically reduce our operating expenses.” Reality is never that simple or clear-cut. Both arguments have validity from a certain perspective, but are severely incomplete pictures of the actual situation.

The above rant was directed at those of you who seem to be “name calling” in your comments. It appears that union and management employees are venting frustration and focusing their anger on each other, which I find unnecessary.

Union folks – management employees are not executives and most of them make less money than you do and pay dramatically more than you do for benefits.

Management folks – the union is just trying to negotiate the best contract possible . . . you would do it too if you had the ability – just because the company will most likely shift the burden to you in increased cost of benefits doesn’t make them your enemy.

If both sides focused their anger on the overpaid, greedy executives that run their lives, things just might change. In my opinion, that is the only way the middle class (which consists of both the union and management employees) will ever reemerge in the 21st century. But that just might be a pipe dream.

Posted by Anonymous | July 24, 2009 - 10:39am

The D4 members have every right to vote down the agreement - that is not bait and switch. What I was referring to was of the D4 leadership knowingly agreed to a proposal they knew would not be approved as a tactic to "deceive" the company in response to the post below suggesting that may be what the union is doing. Of course, that would have to be interpeted by the courts, but I was just commenting assuming that was the tactic as suggested below - nothing more. Personally, I don't see what that would gain them by doing that as a tactic, even if that were legal. I was just pointing out the legal implications of such a tactic.
------------------------------------------------
So if you are pointing out legal implications does that mean you are a lawyer? And if you are, you obviously realize how difficult it would be to prove D4 leadership did that, if indeed they did. Now what AT&T did in D6 with their "Last, Best, Final Offer" and attempt to completely bypass the collective bargaining agreement by sending out letters to the individual CWA members basically begging them to ask the CWA leadership to put the "Offer" to a vote, that was definitely not bargaining in good faith.

The D4 members have every right to vote down the agreement - that is not bait and switch. What I was referring to was of the D4 leadership knowingly agreed to a proposal they knew would not be approved as a tactic to "deceive" the company in response to the post below suggesting that may be what the union is doing. Of course, that would have to be interpeted by the courts, but I was just commenting assuming that was the tactic as suggested below - nothing more. Personally, I don't see what that would gain them by doing that as a tactic, even if that were legal. I was just pointing out the legal implications of such a tactic.

Posted by Trouser | July 22, 2009 - 9:20am

"That tactic could end up being interpreted by the courts as bargaining in bad faith, and, not sure even the Obama Administration would look kindly on that [especially since they're trying to ram Health Care through, getting in the middle of an AT&T strike is the last thing they want to mediate)."

"If the CWA decides to do a bait and switch, I'd suggest the company may just decide to settle in for a long strike."
------------------------------------------------
How would D4 Union Members voting Down the "Tentative Agreement" be considered a "bait and switch"? If it's not acceptable to the membership and they vote it down then they are simply saying exactly that. The D4 leadership may believe it's the best deal they could get, but the membership doesn't have to agree with that. How would that not be bargaining in good faith? CWA national leadership may want to see how D4 members feel about the offer and they believe it is close enough to what they thought they could get. I don't see any bad faith bargaining here. I do know that if D6 leadership had allowed the "last, best, final offer" to be put to a vote it would have been voted down and everyone would be questioning our leaders as to why they would let such an offer even be put to a vote.

Yes, a bait and switch would be considered bargaining in bad faith. There is no way the union would be that stupid. During a strike, the company has the option to permanently replace striking workers. Usually, however, when that happens, the union would easily be able to obtain an injunction to stop it and force the company into arbitration. A bait and switch tactic would severly limit that possibility. End result would be a massive hiring spree of non union employees and the workers that built at&t would be filing for unemployment. Union employees might even have an action against the union leaders. D4 unanimously recommended approval. It was a great deal for both sides. Healthcare that was agreed to is better than 95% of the nation as well as cwa contracts with other telecoms. The union got a lot more out of the company than anyone expected. No way the other districts will do any better.

That tactic could end up being interpreted by the courts as bargaining in bad faith, and, not sure even the Obama Administration would look kindly on that [especially since they're trying to ram Health Care through, getting in the middle of an AT&T strike is the last thing they want to mediate).

More likely is that the D4 leadership has applied a reality check and has decided that these generous pay increases are unheard of in the Midwest (pretty much anywhere these days) and is rolling the dice on these and some small concessions to health care. I'd say this was a rsponse to actually listening to the rank and file, rather than the other way around.

I realize the militant union types don't want to concede anything to the company and any contract that doesn't pay 100% for all benefits and include a 5+% pay raise is going to be "awfull" [sic], but this was a pretty generous settlement and probably met both sides goals. I'm surprised to see the size of the raises, as I figured the settlement would end somewhere near 2%.

If the CWA decides to do a bait and switch, I'd suggest the company may just decide to settle in for a long strike.

Looking at the unemployment numbers lately and the fact that the stimulus package is doing nothing, a job is about the best thing anyone can have these days.

Would you take zero pay raise, but the company agreed to fund 100% of health care premiums with no deductibles in exchange for once ObamaCare was passed, represented employees joined the government insurance plan? Would you take that deal if it was sweetened with a 3% pay raise every year for 3 years?

In response to this poster:

Posted by Anonymous | July 16, 2009 - 12:04am

I do believe the CWA leadership has a plan. Maybe D4 agreeing to the "tentative" agreement is all part of that plan, sort of a way to lull AT&T into thinking they have one less district to worry about then right before the August 8th contract expiration for D3, D4 will vote down the awfull contract that their "leadership" "tentatively" agreed to. Then CWA will call the nationwide strike and AT&T will have to deal with 110,000 union employees on strike right before the back to school season.

Can anyone blame the D4 union for settling? People around the midwest must look around and see all their buddies losing their jobs, their companies becoming wards of the state, and think, "Hey, they're offering us 3% raises, and the union will get an exemption from Obamacare," and this agreement looks pretty darn reasonable, to both sides. I can understand, perhaps why the D6 folks, who are being less wiped out by the recession, may want to hold out, but, D3 has no history of striking (and much of the SE is in dire straits as well), and, California...maybe the last person our can remember to turn off the lights.

I guess in the NE, they just feel compelled to say no, or maybe things are just great up there.

At any rate, you'd think this site would have something on the agreement.

Agreed.... executives (union or corporate) are greedy! That will NEVER change!

Well, the whole notion of holding out until D3 contract is up is now out the window. Once the D4 contract is ratified, they cannot strike. D1 stated that the D4 agreement was not acceptable to their needs. Strange days. Not a very unified union. Sounds like the unions communicate within themselves as well as at&t does internally - not much different after all - both are run by greedy, corrupt executives also.

suck me !!!! LOL
DID I SPELL THAT RIGHT !!!!

PREM TECHS ???
What does 3.25 raise ,"each step" mean ???

SIHGNED??? Are you serious? You only post 9 words and you can't get the spelling correct for them?

Prem Techs
LOOK FOR A JOB.
TENATIVE AGREEMENT SIGHNED

Is there a rule that you have to be semi brain dead to post here? Seems like it.

Posted by Anonymous | July 3, 2009 - 3:31pm

"If AT&T was 'scared', they would have settled by now....they have something up their sleeve that the CWA had better be watching for!

180,000 job openings ? and wouldn't AT&T come out as the hero for that !!! They may even take front page news away from FREAKO JACKSON!!"
-------------------------------------------------
I am so glad AT&T has people like you to let the Union know what AT&T has up their sleeve! With all the advanced warning I am sure the CWA will do the right thing. Thank you so much for the "inside" information.

I guess we all better learn to say.

Would you like fries with that phone service?

"180,000 job openings ?"

OK I'll humor you because if you actually think thier is going to be 180,000 job openings at AT&T, you have completely lost touch with reality.
Question. What wage would AT&T pay?
Answer. Minimum wage. Why would they pay more?
Question. What benefits would AT&T give?
Answer. None. Why would they give any?
Question. Who would work for that?
Answer. Only an idiot like you.
Question. Did you know Mcdonalds is hiring and they offer benefits?

CONTRACTS !!!
So, as of August 8th.
at&t will have knowone under contract ??? CORRECT ???
IBEW contract was up last week and SBC's is up in Aug .
SO HOW STRONG DOES THAT MAKE US THEN ???
180.000 EMPLOYEES ???

-------------------------

If AT&T was 'scared', they would have settled by now....they have something up their sleeve that the CWA had better be watching for!

180,000 job openings ? and wouldn't AT&T come out as the hero for that !!! They may even take front page news away from FREAKO JACKSON!!

CONTRACTS !!!
So, as of August 8th.
at&t will have knowone under contract ??? CORRECT ???
IBEW contract was up last week and SBC's is up in Aug .
SO HOW STRONG DOES THAT MAKE US THEN ???
180.000 EMPLOYEES ???

Wow, just what the world needs, a well paid racists, your momma must be proud.

cable guy,I'm not going to lower myself to your level,because you would beat me with experience.But by the way you talk,I'm sure you are a real go-getter.

I'm in the south east,our date is closing in fast,just keep hangin in there,for the people getting written up,do your job to a tee,if you hit a snag,write it down,to justify your time.To the "cable Guy" I worked in your industry before I came to Bell South,I know what you go through,so please spare the remarks.

I work in a call center, in the SW, pretty much all the incoming calls are 1st answered by a sales agency, we only get the non sales transfers, (problems, bill explanations, etc). However, we still have a very high, unobtainable, sales objective. Our global, enterprises customers, the calls are answered by Business Solutions Group - and yes, that's how they answer the phone, by their own agency name. Because all these agencies are able to note, access, the account, you can blatantly tell it was an agent that passed the call to an actual AT&T call center, and 90% of the time, it's just a bs call, no sales - just irrate customer. The service reps, in the global, enterprises, gem marked accounts, get their orders from a system that customer requests were entered by a sales agency. They, rarely, talk to a customer, they are actually service order writers for the agencies. All the little marketing postcards the company mails to customer, the tollfree numbers listed, go straight to an agency. Service reps, in the SW, are becoming obsolete, contract, or no contract, I seriously think in 10 yrs from now, few of us will still be working for AT&T, unless we jump ship and work for an agency. But at least then, we can cram, screw the customer, and finally don't have to fear dismissal. We can be part of those agencies 300% turnover rate.

SO U MUST BE A WANNA BE TO BE ON AN AT&T WEBSITE, WHAT'S WRONG COULDN'T GET AN INTERVIEW ???? OR ACI OR CABLE EXPPRESS OR TIME WARNER COULNN'T AFFORD THERE OWN WEBSITE ??? LOL

And please keep telling your customers your dvr's should stop rebooting every 3 sec's somtime soon !!!LOL

Thank You AT&T currently I am up to my eyeballs in work. Last 2 weeks check was almost 3G's. I drive an old truck and I work for the cable company. We have so much work after the customer has a run in with you guys. Thank You Uverse. You've been charitable. Placing all those brand new coax lines all over the customers homes for free and all I do is connect splitters to that and away I go! Thank You for making my job so easy. I really appreciate how you stay in customers homes all day and still leave at the end of the day with nothing working or the picture pixilating and the sorry gateway router that keeps cutting off. When I get there the customer is so happy to see me. I get a refreshment from them just to start and an hour later as I'm walking out the door I get a tip$$$ and a friendly handshake. I love my customers, but I love you more AT&T thanks for making my life easier and for the new house I'm buying. God Bless you for trying to be a cable company.

Posted by Anonymous | June 26, 2009 - 11:46pm

The reason why it's slow, in the SW, is because all the agencies are taking the calls.
---------------------------------------------------
So let me make sure I understand this right, AT&T isn't even using their own Service Reps and Call Centers in the SW? Can anyone else confirm this?

From The IBEW website.

Greetings,

BREAKING NEWS

June 28, 2009 at 12:15am

Based on progress on some significant issues, the parties have agreed to stop the clock and continue the negotiations towards agreement. The current contract provisions are still in effect. You are not on strike.

All IBEW members should report to work as scheduled and stay informed. Mobilization efforts must continue to keep the pressure on the company. Massive turnout at rallies tonight throughout the jurisdictions was heard loud and clear at AT&T headquarters in Hoffman Estates. Great job brothers and sisters!

This is encouraging. If they settle, we will settle.

The reason why it's slow, in the SW, is because all the agencies are taking the calls.

Toledo Ohio

Out of curosity, what city/state are ya in. Just wondering cause were kinda slow here in TX all of a sudden. The past 3 weeks they were bringing SN's in throughtout M-F, but now nothing.

What are you talking about running smoothly? In the midwest everything is far from smooth. They have to change schedules every week. We've went to 24/7 coverage because no one will take a call out. We have repair commitments pushed out for a week. We have everyone and thier brother working the repair load (Construction, Air Pressure, First Mile, Hi-Cap). And we still can't keep up. Now they are forcing us to take an hour lunch, because they think by adding time to the tour productivity is going to go up.

Yeah, and don't stay up too late partying in Washington ! Our dues won't keep you going forever ! Oh, and AT&T is still operating smoothly , even though ALL of you are gone ! They may be looking at this as a trial run !

So, the Union is off at their convention? Might as well be, AT&T wasn't negotiating anyways. It is a perfect time for the CWA negotiators to take a vacation and recharge their batteries for the stretch run!! I am glad they have all my dues to help the cause. CWA can't be settling this contract, if AT&T won't negotiate in good faith? I am glad to cover the negotiators jobs!
We're not sitting ducks, and we're also not sinking ships!
Thank you CWA for looking out for us, and fighting Corporate Greed!

CWA LEGACY WEBSITE:
Bargaining will continue tomorrow morning and, although we will not be formally meeting during the CWA Convention, we will continue to exchange information and be in touch with the AT&T Bargaining Committee.
----------------------------

So, the Union is off at their convention ? Gee, nice time to take a vacation guys !!
Is this where all my dues is going ? To pay for your vacation while you should be settling this contract ? While we're here covering your jobs?
We're not only sitting ducks, looks like we're also sinking ships !
Thanks CWA !!!

OH, nothing is going on. Nobody is bargaining. Neither side is doing anything. We're all just sitting ducks. QUACK QUACK!

My manager told me today that he's got to meet over the weekend to do some training ! hmmmmm...