Thread regarding Verizon Communications Inc. layoffs

The original offer was 2% year 1, 2% year 2 and 0% year 3 ( with a $1000 lump sum payment instead) and no company match on the 401k when you continue in the pension plan

So that was a 4% raise at the start of bargaining and only if ratified by aug 3

Lo and behold we issue a strike notice and then an actual strike and Verizon is now at 7.5% and keeping the 401k match

So I guess a strike is the only way to get their attention

Personally I doubt Verizon would fire 40k people.

But for the sake of argument, if they did they would be committing brand suicide.

In a way, I almost want them to do it just to see how dumb they can be yet again.

Remember when they sued the FCC? How did that work out for them?

Think of it like this...remember when Verizon could have had exclusive deal for the iPhone?

This is the Union's iPhone happening right now...will they be stupid and miss a great chance?

So far they are being smart.

They are still striking because Verizon won't give into their demands. And they'll be striking for a long time because they have no leverage and Verizon isn't going to budge on their Best and Final offer.

The union bosses have a lot of pride, and unfortunately their pride is about to cost almost 40,000 people their jobs.

why are people still striking?

that is up to the Union leadership they won't post it on here.

I personally believe they are still striking because once again company leadership has failed.

They picked the worst possible year for Union Busting, The CEO seems arrogant and out of touch, and for all we know the company might be investigated at any time.

Politically they are in a bad place. Also they have killed their own image with the much coveted Millennial generation

.

I believe the Union smells blood in the water, they know they better get as a great contract as they possibly can now, since such a golden opportunity may not come again.

If the company so aggressively caved in then why are you people still striking?

Just when I think you folks can't get any more dense you surprise me.

What's being said is that if the company had made the movement they made on Thursday within the last 10 months we would be that much closer to a contract. Instead it took a company wide strike. Obviously this isn't the last best offer, no matter what they say

They will meet again - and I bet eventually the contract you see won't be a carbon copy of this last best offer. Remember there is still a duty to bargain , no matter what they say

ixg,

That is BS.

There was about a 2.5% for all years, but the last.

The last was teh 1000.00

Ummm ixg, you are talking out of you a$$. The 6.5% raise along with the 1k sign on bonus was what was originally proposed, if the contract was ratified by 8/3/15. So once again, you obviously have no clue what you are talking about.

The company DID move.off it's original. If you recall, or disnt even know, they didn't even want to give us ANY raise, just a $1000 payment in lieu of. So yeah, they def budged since he beginning.

And I agree, they are a$$holes for not just bargaining in the first place and instead playing games.

fxi, where did was it said that the company caved? Its to late for you , its past your bedtime.

fxi, they did move from their initial stance, they increased the percentage of the raise from 6.5 to 7,5 and the closing of call centers, they only wanted 6 remaining they increased it to 11, get your facts straight, Verizon is keeping you in the dark, becuase they don't care about what you think or know.

qbp: The company didn't move off it's initial stance (that's why the strike is still going on according to your union leadership).

If the company caved as you say then why are you still on strike?

Yeah they went from a 6.5% raise over 3 years to 7.5%. The company caved big time.

fmy, he is merely stating that Verizon could have reached this point earlier in the bargaining process. Verizon has moved off of their original stance. There is more to discuss, they have not addressed the union issues. That's why they call it bargaining. You only know one side.

So the OP is basically accusing the company of bargaining the same way the unions do. During the last strike the union took the same deal they initially striked over and they could have avoided the whole thing if they had just taken it to begin with.

I think the OP was saying the company could have bargained from june 2nd and placed an offer with fewer sticking points on the table then spent 2 months negotiating on them instead of wasting 10 months and forcing a strike to get to the same place

Your post makes no sense. That offer is on the table and you're still striking, so obviously your entire post is irrelevant.

Are you trying to make us believe that this offer you are striking over wouldn't have led to a strike if you had gotten it 3 weeks ago? Good Lord.