Thread regarding Verizon Communications Inc. layoffs

Pretty simple...VZ wins, workers union and non union take it in the shorts

SUMMARY: Understand supreme court 2013 decision. Understand that economic union strike after contract expiration gives VZ OK to hire replacements. Understand that temp EWA replacements are there as more perminent replacements (non-union contractors) displaced from industry-wide cuts over

last 7-10 yrs get hired each week. VZ slow rolls it, dragging it out w/no intention of bargaining. Many EWAs get sick of it and quit which saves VZ a RIF package. When the dust settles VZ has non-union employees w/lower pay, lower benefits, and a smaller 'management' staff much cheaper than doing more RIFs.

by
| 1448 views | | 20 replies (last April 22, 2016) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+H1E14z2

20 replies (most recent on top)

Wack.. lol.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1odo+H1E14z2

@H1E14z2-1tos

Lol you got that right!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1hla+H1E14z2

I'm not worried. Just wait till Gov CUomo threatens to audit Verizon's books. We will see movement in no time. They are a bunch of crooks!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1tos+H1E14z2

Truly. I don't get it.

As some of the manager EWA folks are finding out in the field, along with the 'Rule of Holes'; "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

Really, what was wrong with the contract that you were woring under up until the strike? The company wasn't happy? Why?

The company makes sh--loads of money, right now, predictable, forecastable, dividendable money. Lots of it.

But its not sexy money like Facebook or Snapchat.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1ija+H1E14z2

That's legal argument that the lawyers can have indefinitely...lawyers are good at that. Meanwhile the ball keeps rolling...contractors keep coming in the door every day and management keeps getting burned out and quitting, and union try to find a way to make ends meet.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1jgm+H1E14z2

I am arguing the opposite. I don't understand the company's point at all. What is wrong with the prior contact? Did something extraordinary happen between 2012 and now that I missed?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1het+H1E14z2

That is all true but doesn't have much of anything to do with our situation. You cannot just come to the table and say it's my way or the highway, offer some bullshit raise and call it fair negotiating. If you are unwilling, which seems to be the companies stance, to bend on issues that you don't like, it can not be considered negotiating. Granted we don't get much of the story from either side but at least the union has stated that they have moved on healthcare and other issues. The company, from what I have read from Mark GREEDS letters he sent all of us, just keep sayings the same thing. "We need flexibility" with our staff. It's a bunch of bullshit that anyone with a brain can see is a scam towards the union staff.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1wyg+H1E14z2

Actually it is economic. Verizon is a commoditized business and a good one. It pays stupedous dividends to its shareholders and its cash flows are predictable, stable and grow with the economy. Unfortunately that is not good enough for Low Rent Lowmac and his pet Shamwow. When you thing of the amount of money that the company has pissed away on non esseential non telecom businesses, it's obscene. Yet these muggles are still being allowed to run the company into the ground. WTF?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1ahj+H1E14z2

Considering that the company won't even entertain giving our wireless brothers and sisters a fair contract I would err on the side of not negotiating in good faith.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1zqm+H1E14z2

That would depend on who's lawyer you talk to. VZ claims to have bargained in good faith and will come back to the table any time. We can argue that's not true but again while that goes round and round union stays out, mgmt gets more fed up and quits, VZ cuts more cost as they leave, and every week higher % of those working are non-union contractors. Why would they stop the trend?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1uvk+H1E14z2

Understand that this is NOT an economic strike. The company is not negotiating in good faith and there for we are on strike for an unfair labor practice.

A strike is legal – and therefore protected by the NLRA – if the employees are striking for economic reasons or to protest an unfair labor practice by the employer. In the first scenario, strikers are trying to get some economic concession from the employer, like higher wages, increased benefits, or better working conditions. In the second, workers strike because the employer has engaged in some practice that violates the NLRA, like refusing to bargain with the union or discriminating against union members

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1uew+H1E14z2

seems this thread has a few vz economic geniuses,

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1vhf+H1E14z2

And we have the union to thank for all the RIFs.

Tell me again how Verizon and the non-union employees get any positives whatsoever out of the union?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1tck+H1E14z2

That migt be good, likely better for everyone. Better because this crew does not seem to like people, and people is what telecommunications is all about.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1xbj+H1E14z2

Understand that as soon as the union cost are in check, wireline will be sold off.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1nvq+H1E14z2

Last qtr earnings have nothing to do with this quarter's strike. VZ response to declining numbers has been cut workers for years now. Their current strategy saves money. Since they can't grow revenue they cut expense. This works perfectly for them.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1psd+H1E14z2

Understand that it would take Verizon years to replace this size of a work force, and get them up to speed. And understand Wall Street is not going to wait for Verizon's experiment.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1cxt+H1E14z2

Understand that Verizon missed Q1 earnings. Cracks are starting to appear in the once almighty.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1efs+H1E14z2

This is what I call Bull sh^t on! Americans are catching on and seeing what life is shaping up to be for their kids, and it ain't perty. Verizon, like Intel and others are engaging in a race to the bottom, in an attempt to beat costs into submission, and in turn American work culture.

In this election environment and given the nature of the company's investors, these are people interested in stable dividends, growth and interest. Not growth. I believe they entertained reinvesting in growth projects and new technology, but not at the cost of stability.

The execs are going to lose this one. Rather than buy AOL the company could have repurchased another $4B in debt.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1wha+H1E14z2

Understand that you sir......are wack.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1eva+H1E14z2

Post a reply

: