Trump lead tax plan already effecting 200,000 AT&T Union members

[mark46]

A mass layoff includes good workers. I worked at a facility that did one and I got to sit through some of those decisions. First positions were identified and some simply eliminated. Then voluntary layoffs. Then the employees with disciplinary issues, then the "low performers. Then the issue got down to which "good people" had to go. One ugly meeting involved a department head having to sit there as his wife's status was reviewed. She was laid off.

The CEO was a bit sadistic and I suspect he enjoyed that part. But, a couple of months later, he got the axe. And the next year, we all got the axe. It was weird literally padlocking the door and handing the keys to a security guard.

Both my wife and I have experienced this process. The process is a rational one. Obviously, the company is a failed company when it needs to past the first few steps you mention.

 

[Maren]

Substandard?

A company has a profit margin that supports 20,000 workers. There 20,700.
700 are played off. The open question is what method should be used to bring down labor costs. There are many, many options.
1) Everyone could take a pay cut or reduce hours.
2) The union or union rules can determine who goes.
3) Management can look at its units or at its employees and let god the least productive.
4) Management can make arbitrary decisions about who goes.

Usually the choices are a combination. My point is that there is nothing inherently wrong with #3. The least productive workers is not "substandard" except in the sense that a new standard has been made.

The reality is that labor is more productive than they used to be. More is produced with fewer labor hours. Perhaps this is due to new equipment, perhaps to improved processes, perhaps to the effect of computers. But the bottom line is that a unit that once needed 1000 workers now needs fewer.

Let's be honest here: AT&T isn't cutting because they can't support the workers; they are making plenty of profit, even after giving out the new bonuses to their employees. The issue is that they feel they need fewer people working laying lines, and fewer customer service (despite already being rated as having poor customer service) -- and worse, they are laying these people off at the same time they promise to hire 7,000 new workers.

As far as "substandard" -- in the case of the line workers, they are laying off most of a division, as I understand it. In terms of Customer Service, what is "substandard." Too often, from what I've seen, the standard is based on how many customers an agent can talk to in an hour and not on the level of service provided, or if the agent fixed the customers issues.

 

[mark46]

If their poor customer service hurt their profits, they would change their customer service methods and/or number employees. That has happened with lost of companies.

You see a conflict with laying off one division of 700 and hiring 7000 elsewhere. I don't.

But let's make this clear. A division lays lines/cable. They used to need 3700 people. They now need 3000, even with more line work, because of technology improvement. Do you suggest that they shouldn't lay off the 700 (or eliminate 700 positions, which is more often the actual case)? Or should the company keep unneeded workers.

Let's be honest here: AT&T isn't cutting because they can't support the workers; they are making plenty of profit, even after giving out the new bonuses to their employees. The issue is that they feel they need fewer people working laying lines, and fewer customer service (despite already being rated as having poor customer service) -- and worse, they are laying these people off at the same time they promise to hire 7,000 new workers.

As far as "substandard" -- in the case of the line workers, they are laying off most of a division, as I understand it. In terms of Customer Service, what is "substandard." Too often, from what I've seen, the standard is based on how many customers an agent can talk to in an hour and not on the level of service provided, or if the agent fixed the customers issues.

 

[Maren]

If their poor customer service hurt their profits, they would change their customer service methods and/or number employees. That has happened with lost of companies.

You see a conflict with laying off one division of 700 and hiring 7000 elsewhere. I don't.

But let's make this clear. A division lays lines/cable. They used to need 3700 people. They now need 3000, even with more line work, because of technology improvement. Do you suggest that they shouldn't lay off the 700 (or eliminate 700 positions, which is more often the actual case)? Or should the company keep unneeded workers.

I'm saying they are spinning this to garner favor with the Trump administration. I'm saying that the people being laid off aren't "poor performers" but just as likely are older (make more money) or other similar reasons other than performance.

 

[bhsmte]

Upper management decides to lay off workers. Middle management decides who to cut and what basis. Sometimes the decisions are indeed made based on productivity.

I have been in executive management for over 20 years and have seen more than my share of layoffs. Not a one was based on productivity of the workers, but in regards to cost savings reasons and or mergers that created an over abundance of workers.

 

[Belk]

OK, I'll be clear. Business owners don't have to justify their decisions to anyone but their shareholders, assuming that no laws are broken.

I never claimed otherwise.

Each company decides for themselves when and how to cut costs, and on what basis.

Many companies do a really bad job.
====
No one has said the 700 who lost their jobs DESERVED to lose their jobs. I don't even know what that means.

Actually, that was exactly the implication that I first quoted.

I have merely stated that one of the ways of deciding which jobs are cut is to cut those divisions or individuals that are least productive. Can it be that 700 are less productive than others? Can it be the a whole factory is less productive than other factories? Sure.

It could be. It could also be an entire factory that is more productive then anyone else and it is decided that is not the direction the company is going. As you said, as long as it is not illegal they don't have to justify it and tough luck to those who are caught in the cross hairs.

 

[camille70]

Trump Buried Over 500 Pages Deep in New Law a Way to Take Money From Police Officers and Firefighters

http://www.bluedotdaily.com/trump-b...cebook&utm_medium=PL&utm_campaign=facebook_PL

 

[FenderTL5]

Upper management decides to lay off workers. Middle management decides who to cut and what basis. Sometimes the decisions are indeed made based on productivity.

not with union employees

 

[FenderTL5]

AT&T said it rather plainly. Are you saying they are lying?

given the most recent information. yes, that's what i'm saying.

 

[TLK Valentine]

 

[FenderTL5]

and by "all", they only mean union represented, non-management employees..

 

[Vylo]

If their poor customer service hurt their profits, they would change their customer service methods and/or number employees. That has happened with lost of companies.

Poor customer service rarely affects those with monopolies. See Comcast, the most hated company in America, which still has plenty of profit, because folks such as myself have literally no alternative or means to have our grievances addressed.

 

[variant]

Poor customer service rarely affects those with monopolies. See Comcast, the most hated company in America, which still has plenty of profit, because folks such as myself have literally no alternative or means to have our grievances addressed.

Which is why we shouldn't allow monopolies to be created and protected by the government.

Comcast has been making it hard for my city to install fiber-optic wire for municipal internet that would absolute hammer them and we can thank the "party of the free market" for carrying their water.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Trump Buried Over 500 Pages Deep in New Law a Way to Take Money From Police Officers and Firefighters

http://www.bluedotdaily.com/trump-b...cebook&utm_medium=PL&utm_campaign=facebook_PL

I'd be surprised if first responders would be hurt much by this. Those employee expense deductions were only available for amounts above 2% of your AGI. For someone making $50k (which is on the low end for cops and fire fighters), that would be anything above $1,000. Figure the union dues are $400/yr, which would leave $600/yr just to meet the threshold. I have a hard time imagining how a cop would spend more than $600/yr on uniforms and weapons. I could maybe see it in the first year if they have to buy everything new, but after that?

The folks who are really going to be hit by it are the ones who work from home and the ones who use their own vehicles for work, but aren't reimbursed (e.g. Uber drivers). Also, people in the performing arts who work like freelancers but who are classified as employees. (I can imagine some construction industries working like this, too, but I'm not as familiar with that)

 

[mark46]

not with union employees

Many of those fired are lower level management. These are the most vulnerable today.