Thread regarding Verizon Communications Inc. layoffs

Just an FYI to fyb, Obama has NOT made the teachers' union happy. Common Core is not the teacher's friend.

"In my opinion, the supposed negotiations are no more than smoke and mirrors, which benefits all of the important players: VZ, union leadership and the current administration. Everyone appears to be doing something, while in truth a new CBA which will allow VZ to sell off the wireline portion of its business under the terms that are more palatable to its new owner - likely Frontier - has been all but printed at this point."

I have been wondering the same thing.......I too think there may be a master puppeteer (perhaps the new owner) behind the curtains pulling all our strings (both on the management and union sides).

" I do not think the company actually has to declare a lockout and it probably doesn't want to as that would give priority to senior, union employees who want to return. "

Actually, for all that you've previously stated in your post to occur, a lockout would have to be declared. Which the company won't do and here's why: it is far easier to keep the union out almost indefinitely which would allow VZ to escape from dealing with possible ULP charges. That's the longer but far more fireproof way of actually cracking the union without advertising to the entire world that one has done so.

"The negotiations in DC aren't really about a CBA. They are about trying to keep Verizon from going down this road. The Democratic administration doesn't like the optics of a major US company successfully "breaking" a union, especially in an election year. "

In my opinion, the supposed negotiations are no more than smoke and mirrors, which benefits all of the important players: VZ, union leadership and the current administration. Everyone appears to be doing something, while in truth a new CBA which will allow VZ to sell off the wireline portion of its business under the terms that are more palatable to its new owner - likely Frontier - has been all but printed at this point.

"My question is whether McAdam can tell the Secretary of Labor (really the President) to butt out and mind his own business. I think he is doing that right now and that is why there has been no announcement."

There's no need for McAdam to say any such thing. This administration - as well as any future one - needs VZ for spying on its citizens, and will not go out of its way to press Verizon's top brass in any way. Obama is not a friend of unionized labor, and anyone who believes differently is simply fooling themselves. His track record in this respect - apart from making sure that teacher's union is happy - is no different from his supposedly Republican predecessor.

"If zzw is correct and the DC meetings are not about making a new contract, does that mean it's fairly unlikely the strike will be over anytime soon?"

That would seem to be a logical assumption (if the DC meetings are not really about getting a contract in place). Considering how much money the company is putting into this effort, that would be a very real possibility. If that is in fact is the case, EWAs may have another month or so of full-time duty before the reductions start (i.e. some folks go home for good, others are 50/50 on their regular job and EWA, etc). From what has been stated by the company, by then the contracted workforce will be of sufficient number for this to happen. I guess time will tell.....

If zzw is correct and the DC meetings are not about making a new contract, does that mean it's fairly unlikely the strike will be over anytime soon?

from wxg to zzw (and to bwp and msz): thank you; responses much appreciated.

I agree.....a very succinct and factual post by zzw. It was nice to see something presented logically on this topic (and devoid of the usual emotionality).

ZZW is right on the money.

In order to open the "closed" shops (which are actually called "union" shops, "closed" shops are illegal in the US), Verizon would need to declare an impasse and implement the terms of the LB&F Offer as the new work terms.

The reason these shops are considered "closed" is per a provisions in the CBA where Verizon agreed to require all employees in certain shops to pay the minimum union dues. (Interestingly, even in a closed shop, employees don't have to be full members, but they do have to pay dues to the union to pay the union for representing them -- sort of like being a limited member.). This obligation continues after the CBA expires, but goes away when the company implements new work terms. "Union shops" are illegal in Right to Work states such as Virginia, so these rules don't apply there.

The risk is this: If Verizon declares an impasse, the unions will claim Unfair Labor Practices and sue the company at the NLRB. If they win, Verizon would have to come back to the bargaining table. If they lost, Verizon would be free to move forward completely free of a duty to collectively bargain -- unless and until the replacements employees were to organize all over again, which Verizon would fight hard against.

This is why the LB&F Offer was so important -- to set the stage for claiming impasse, implementing new work conditions (which cannot be worse than the LB&F Offer) and being able to hire permanent, non-union replacements without going so far as a lockout. I do not think the company actually has to declare a lockout and it probably doesn't want to as that would give priority to senior, union employees who want to return.

The negotiations in DC aren't really about a CBA. They are about trying to keep Verizon from going down this road. The Democratic administration doesn't like the optics of a major US company successfully "breaking" a union, especially in an election year. My question is whether McAdam can tell the Secretary of Labor (really the President) to butt out and mind his own business. I think he is doing that right now and that is why there has been no announcement.

lax: I thought it was logical of you to assume a carry-forward in any contract that the unioners would agree to. Anyway, my next question, then, and please, is this: assuming that most all unioners would legally get to come back over contractors, is the reality, from a legal perspective, that if VZ actually wanted to permanently get rid of union employees, VZ would need to NOT enter into any new agreement and then have that non-entry eventually be deemed, under law, to have been due to a legitimate impasse that was not caused by any unfair labor practice by VZ? Wouldn't those 3 things need to be the case, then, in order for VZ to not have to legally remain unionized? Is that how the relevant law works?

"There is no contract @lax and inexplicably you assume all the old provisions will carry forward."

Well, no changes to this aspect of the contract(s) were ever integrated into VZ's so-called LBFO in any of the districts currently on strike. Maybe you know something that I don't. If so, please educate me, with a verifiable source of information.

There is no contract @lax and inexplicably you assume all the old provisions will carry forward.

Bye scab

"How does that work, legally?"

Verizon would have to keep all the union members. It's really that simple. These are "closed" shops everywhere apart from possibly RTW state of VA.

Layoff provisions in all contracts call for termination of temporary employees first, so the contractors would be the ones to go. Even if the contractors were to be made permanent employees - and therefore become a part of the union - they would still get laid off first due to their lack of seniority.

fxd: say all of the unioners want to come back, but say that VZ wants to retain the X,000 contractors hired. How does that work, legally? Who decides which of the unioners do not come back? The union or VZ?

-tjm in an economic strike VZ is not required to hire back striking workers. My guess would be that they still want the union to come back but the union needs to realize that the mindset that a long strike hurts the company is not the best mindset. The union will hurt just as much, if not more, in the long run. While the company will hurt there will definitely be a point where the company will see that its investment in contractors has been so great that they can use them to beat the union. They will just prop up the union members that crossed to mentor the contractors.

to jds, or anyone else: if offer is still open, then, and union were to finally accept it (or something like it), say, 30 days from now, and at that time VZ has already put X,000 contractors (or other new people) in place by then, do all of the unioners get to come back, and displace all of the X,000 contractors, or can VZ give those X,000 contractors priority over unioners?

Of course, if you asked a Union Representative, they will tell you that they are NOT in mediation.

Go figure.

No, they did not.

The said certain provisions would be removed on 5/20.

In mediation, they may or may not remove them.

Stop trying to troll, and learn to read. I know that is hard for a CWA troll.