SBC CWA Strike Imminent 572
Tmack writes "SBC union workers are preparing (again) to strike after negotiations have broken down between CWA and SBC. What this means to the average person? As long as the strike is taking place, orders for new service and repair of existing services with SBC will be delayed as only non-union workers and temps will be around to complete the work. Latest word is the strike is now planned for Friday night through next Tuesday. Check here(1),
here(2), and here(3)
for more info."
Who? What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Say what you will... (Score:4, Insightful)
IANA Economics Major
A little locale (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone could at least explain if this will have an effect on us.
Gotta love the unions (Score:3, Insightful)
"Joe won't be coming in to work and you can't fire him nor can you hire a temporary replacement for him. If you want Joe to work again, you must cough up some money."
I'd be arrested and charged with extortion. It has always baffled me that this kind of behavior is actually legally sanctioned.
So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
2) exacly why is this news? just because it's in the US? (not sure, just assuming).
People do live outside the US, you know.
opinion of SBC from a retiree (Score:5, Insightful)
I heard my dad make some mention of this a few days ago. Of course, this doesn't surprise me. My father spoke of SBC cutting retirement benefits in the future just to get people to retire early before the lower benefits took place.
He also spoke of his animosity towards SBC because of their push for Technicians to get more jobs completed in less time. Thus, you get people doing a job and meeting the most basic requirements to complete the job, so they end up closing out the job quickly.
My dad has a wall of Customer Service awards, but his managers would always complain about his inability to close jobs out quickly. My dad always told them he'd much rather take his time and make sure the customer is happy than do a barely-done job with a disgruntled customer.
Oh well, it doesn't matter now. The older generation of Technicians who actually care about the customer are retiring while newer non-union/contractors fill the slots
Even my dad doesn't have SBC for his phones anymore, even with the retiree discount
Re:unions Suck! (Score:3, Insightful)
You people all (most) seem to not like unions. Why? Over here (Europe), they make sure we get the wages we deserve and don't get fired for stupid things like if the boss doesn't like you or whatever. I've never heard of any unreasonable strikes... Have you been indoctrinated from birth or do you have any real reasons to dislike unions?
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2, Insightful)
You might not get service durring that time, but they'll gladly take your money.
Re:unions Suck! (Score:2, Insightful)
Some unions are vital (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, you are right, there are unions that do more harm than good. They impose requirements to create meaningless jobs instead of letting companies become more efficient (and thereby creating new useful jobs or having more money for raises).
On the other hand, there are unions that are vital for protecting the employees. My wife is a teacher, and I've see how private non-unionized schools have taken advantage of her. Everything from expecting her to contribute financially to school fundraisers to attending a week-long out-of-state field trip (with no extra pay or provision in her contract). Of course, teachers are generally there because that's what they want to do, not for the money, which puts them in a prime position to be taken advantage of without a union to look out for their interests. (Of course, I have gripes with the political activities of teachers' unions, but that's another story.)
I heard a radio commercial about this problem (Score:4, Insightful)
They [SBC] don't have the excuse of failing profit margins or losses. They are just greedy. If the shareholders out there would vote their minds, they'd probably change out those in control... but then again, they're probably one in the same.
Re:A little locale (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a friend who works there, and she has had to learn how to solder among other things that may need to be done in the field. I wouldn't change anything relating to my service during the strike. Imagine an army of PHBs pulling wire pairs out of equipment and putting them into wall sockets or some such.... All the management had to take crash courses in how to do various things that they'd have to take over in case of a strike. I suspect the longer the strike lasts, the more they will realize how much the company depends on those people.
You can say that again (Score:5, Insightful)
The day that I accepted the new job, I got a phone call from my old shop. The union went to management and strong-armed them into restoring a lot of jobs in income-producing areas, including mine. I could have my old position back provided that I came to work the next day. I immediately accepted my old position, and called the new shop to let them know what happened and that I would be returning to my old job.
Good thing I did, too. Within six months of my returning to my old job, the new shop circulated a petition amoung the workers to get rid of the union. As soon as the union was gone, they moved all the first-tier tech support positions to India.
Lesson learned. Unions mean job security. No unions mean you take your chances.
how is this different? (Score:2, Insightful)
Ahh another reason to ban..err love UNIONS (Score:3, Insightful)
Unions should be banned.
Re:You can say that again (Score:5, Insightful)
Unions also mean you are paid the same as the idiot in the next cube but less than idiot who is two years senior.
I will take my chances, thank you.
I'm one of the guys that gets to fill in... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Legal rights of union members? (Score:1, Insightful)
I always like how most Unions claim to be supporting the 'little guys'. Except that support ends when someone wants to work without joining the union or accepting exhorbitant pay and benifits, then the Union says "How dare you hire anyone thats not a member of our union!" and fights to have non-unionists removed.
I'd be more supportive of unions (I'm not bashing all unions, just ones that do the things I mention) if they actually supported all workers, regardless of their membership status, didn't strike to get above-average pay and benefits, and striked only to protest true unfairness and unfair practices to support worker's rights.
Re:Say what you will... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly the US has a (recent) history of people abusing that power
Fewer installs means... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You can say that again (Score:4, Insightful)
My first job was baging groceries part time in high school. When I moved to Colorado I tried to get a similar job at a local Safeway. Even though the checkout lines were easily 3-4 times longer than the ones at my old store, they wouldn't hire me. I found out that it was mostly because of the union there (which explained why the checkers/bagers were so old). Why on earth should people have a stable, relatively high-paying job baging groceries? It just causes consumer frustration, raises costs for the company and reduces income by providing worse service than non-union competitors. IMO, monopolies should be avoided if at all possible, and in those exceptions be government regulated to keep prices under control.
Re:Convenient Timing, that... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You can say that again (Score:4, Insightful)
I will take my chances, thank you.
The second management thinks your job can go to India, it doesn't matter how smart you are. Your ass is in the unemployment line.
You may get paid the same as the idiot in the next cube (who thinks you are the idiot most of the time) but at least you get to keep your job. I simply do not understand the brainwashing that goes on about unions. Sure, there are bad ones, but quite a few are allright, and some are even very good. Not to say that a union can't be stupid, but let's face it: SBC's profits are sky high, and still they want to screw over the workers. The question is, would you rather have a job where you are paid the same as the idiot in the next cube, pulling down a living wage, or do you want to learn how to say "You want fries with that"?
Your choice. Choose wisely.
This will have a stronger impact than you think (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyhow, we have our own fiber network, our own switchng equipment, and we are responsible for our own order processing, repairs, service changes, etc. Basically we rely on SBC for what is termed the "last mile", or the cable that leaves from either a COLO (colococation office) or CO (central office) and leads right up to the building being serviced. This also includes the pedestals and other line structures used to pass service along.
We rely on SBC to make repairs to aerial or buried drops and for basic installation. How it works is we send SBC an order saying "Hey, this person wants our service. Hook them up." SBC then gives us the line from their switch and ensures that the line leading from the pedestal or segmentation equipment is dropped off at the NID (Network Interface Device). We then complete the order by doing the necessary routing, NPAC (Number Portability), hooking up the inside wiring, and ensuring service is delivered properly. As you can imagine, while we don't overly rely on SBC's equipment we are very dependent on their service. This strike will make an already long installation process even longer and perhaps delay repairs to infrastructure. While this strike seems to only affect SBC and their customers on the surface, this could have potentially damaging effects on our service as well by delaying key steps in the installation and repair sectors.
SBC has always been a little underhanded when it has come to playing fair, ie giving our customers lines that they knew were of less than stellar quality, delaying the install process when they can get away with it, charging us for doing a "no trouble found" dispatch where the problem "mysteriously" diappears so as to cause an unnecessary dispatch chargeback to appear, etc. We try and get along, but it is not always that easy. We've had issues with their technicians disparaging our service as well, trying to get a "winback" so as to regain their previous customers' service. In fact, we keep a database of all the things that SBC has done to try and undermine our service so we can have an accurate record to present to the PSC (Public Service Commission). You'd be amazed at what SBC tries to do to steal back their customers. Thankfully we do provide cheaper service and better customer care IMHO.
While I understand why the CWA is striking I hope the issue is solved soon. Otherwise it is going to cause our little company a lot of headaches in the long run. While we may not always get along, we are really dependent on SBC to get service and maintanance schedules completed properly and on time.
Unions are anti-competitive (Score:5, Insightful)
The bad thing about unions is they mean you don't have to work hard to keep a job, even at a generous, well managed company. They give workers a lever to use against management to get what they want even if it means screwing a management who's actually doing a decent job.
Sounds like the same union huh?
Unions themselves aren't inherently evil, but they are easily abused these days. I'd rather have lazy stupid people wandering around happy they have a job than lazy stupid people screaming with picket signs and complaining to me that they have no job and they have the right to break into my house and steal my things because society sucks. I believe in that social safety net and all.
However, tighting up a few rules and introducing some healthy competition into unions would be a stellar idea. How about requiring that companies have more than one union for the same workers?! The union that performs better gets better bonuses from the company. How about restricting some of the practices with unions, like making strikes illegal for more important service companies like SBC, where service is crucial.
But of course, evil unions have lobbies, and would never allow that to happen.
Re:opinion of SBC from a retiree (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:unions Suck! (Score:3, Insightful)
Almost all workers in the US have the right to quit their job if they don't like the conditions. Unions were formed by people saying "Unless you start collective barganing with this here union we formed, we all quit." You decided that you'd rather deal with the union than to find all new workers. All contracts you signed say you will continue to work with the union rather than replace all your workers at one time. In other words, you signed a contact. Capitalitic enough for you?
The definition of capitalism would more likely say that if workers aren't satisfied with their wages and think they're being shafted by management, they can all go and start up their own competing business and offer better service and pay their workers higher wages.
It also has a few things to say about:
Safety conditions - brought to you by unions
Hour limits and overtime pay - brought to you by unions
Minimum wage - brought to you by unions
loyal workers & customers - brought to you by happy workers that happen to belong to a union.
Which isn't to say that some unions can't be nuts, but in this case I think CWA has a few points. Like share the wealth we made for you with the people that made it happen. Still, SBC doesn't have to deal with the union if it doesn't want to. Just replace all those workers all at once.
Re:You can say that again (Score:3, Insightful)
As far as CA grocery workers, they struck one chain and were locked out of two other chains. So it was more of a lockout than what you call it, a strike. As far as Wal-Mart, the solution is to unionized Wal-Mart - if GM and Ford could be unionized, so to can Wal-Mart be unionized.
If you think not having a union means job security, ask the textile workers in North Carolina.
Re:I'm one of the guys that gets to fill in... (Score:3, Insightful)
Amen, brother. What a strike means is that union employees (is SBC a closed-shop?) will get better benefits or better pay or subsidized jobs for life, paid for by the company who's got bullied into acquiesence. In order to maintain a profitable bottom line (let's be honest - companies that don't make money for their investors don't survive long, and making money by providing goods and/or services is what running a company is all about), the company will have to pick up the slack somewhere else, either by cutting other non-union jobs, cutting pay or benefits to non-union workers, or raising prices.
Cutting jobs or cutting pay results in fewer employees, meaning fewer taxpayers and more unemployment, creating more of a burden on government to pick up the slack. It also means more work for the union employees, who get extra pay for work over and above 40 hours a week, meaning less money for the company to invest in new products, meaning more cuts, and so on.
Raising prices has a similar circular effect - less people can now afford to buy your product, or you sell less, which means you need fewer workers to handle the load, which leads to layoffs (only non-union people, please - the union guys have a contract!), and you're back to the first example.
The one good thing that may come from this - if people can't buy SBS products due to poor service or high prices, they'll go to a competitor who, in order to stay competitive, doesn't have union-mandated minimum pay, job security, or benefits. SBC goes out of business, the new company flourishes, and the union guys can talk about the glory days, lament the loss of their guaranteed jobs, and listen to Billy Joel's "Allentown" around the watering hole.
Hey, a guy can dream, can't he?
Re:You can say that again (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should UPS agree to the union's terms if it feels that it's not right? Believe it or not, for-profit companies exist to for profit. The owners/shareholders demand certain level of profit. Otherwise, why risk investing in the stock market?
I agree on the fact that unions did a lot of good in this country. However, I feel that unions of today are something else, more like NRA than grassroots organization of the past.
Re:Legal rights of union members? (Score:2, Insightful)
In most union shops, striking is a valid work activity - firing a worker for participating in a strike is just short of being illegal (it may actually be, in some places).
Remember the air traffic controllers strike in the 80's? The only way those guys got of the picket line was through an Executive Order from Pres. Ronnie Raygun - basically, he fired them all and replaced them with people who do the damn job.
Re:A little local (Score:3, Insightful)
I seriously have no idea. Whenever I see Verizon, I think it's Verisign.
All the Slashdot blurb tells me is that SBC provide a service and repair existing services. That service could be mobile dog-washing for all the explaining done.
The first article tells me that CWA is Communications Workers of America. The second suggests that a telephone company is involved, and the third is fluff.
So people might experience delays with getting a new phone service or repairing an existing one, but can still make calls, and this is frontdoor news on an "international
I've had news submissions about students discovering critical flaws in wireless technology get rejected while something like this gets through? Hmm.
Re:opinion of SBC from a retiree (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't take this the wrong way, but your Dad might have been a bit confused about his job. He obviously thought it was to satisfy customers. In truth, it was to satisfy the people paying his paycheck.
Dude, you're brainwashed. People aren't machines.
I'm not advocating crappy service, but I am advocating management not being second guessed.
Is "management" some sort of God or something? You have been totally brainwashed. Individuals are capable of making decisions too.
Re:Unions are anti-competitive (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm one of the guys that gets to fill in... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't "thank" the union. The union did not mandate 12x7 shifts. SBC did that. SBC could have hired a larger number of contractors or offered volunteer overtime or any number of other solutions to keep operations moving in the event of a strike. They chose instead to mandate 12x7 shifts for every non-bargained employee and to recall those employees from their vacations. CWA had no hand in that decision.
Not only that, but the initial communications indicated that SBC would not be offering overtime pay for salaried managers who were required to work hourly union positions. Nice of SBC to pass the cost of the strike along to the folks who are still at work keeping the company running.
That said, I've no sympathies with either side of this conflict. My sympathies lie with those hit by the collateral damage: mainly the non-bargained employees and managers like yourself who are on mandatory 12x7s, but also the customers who are for damn sure not going to get a normal level of service. They are the losers here, not SBC, and not CWA.
In reality, people modify roles (Score:3, Insightful)
There is the policy a company states they wish to follow, and there is the policy a companies staff actually implements - these are usually different. A persons job is what they can do and convince the company to pay them for. It's up to the company to hire people that will try to do things beneficial for the company instead of draining from the company. Companies also have the choice to spend less attention to good hiring and more attention to monitoring for enforcement of a centralized policy - but it's more cost effective to find good people that require less monitoring.
Re:opinion of SBC from a retiree (Score:3, Insightful)
Every employee uses discretion, whether they are a telephone installer, policeman, janitor, commercial pilot, strawberry picker... this is the very reason we use humans for all of these jobs, their discretion. If the company continues paying him while they bitch about his numbers, he must be doing something right.
Re:I heard a radio commercial about this problem (Score:3, Insightful)