AT&T Preps For New Layoffs Despite Billions In Tax Breaks and Regulatory Favors (vice.com) 180
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: AT&T is preparing for yet another significant round of layoffs according to internal documents obtained by Motherboard. The staff reductions come despite billions in tax breaks and regulatory favors AT&T promised would dramatically boost both investment and job creation. A source at AT&T who asked to remain anonymous because they were not authorized to speak publicly told Motherboard that company leadership is planning what it's calling a "geographic rationalization" and employment "surplus" reduction that will consolidate some aspects of AT&T operations in 10 major operational hubs in New York, California, Texas, New Jersey, Washington State, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, and Washington, DC. A spokesperson for AT&T confirmed to Motherboard that it is planning to "adjust" its workforce.
While AT&T has yet to come up with a final, formal internal tally for this new round of looming layoffs, AT&T employees worry the staff reductions could prove to be significant, especially outside of these core areas. Managers are being briefed on the plans now, though AT&T isn't expected to formally announce the specifics until they're finalized later this month. The staff reductions were first announced in an internal memo sent to managers last Friday by Jeff McElfresh, President, Technology & Operations at AT&T. This news comes in the wake of AT&T receiving a $20 billion windfall last quarter courtesy of the Trump administration tax breaks. That's in addition to the friendlier environment AT&T finds itself in as a result of the Trump administration's assault on consumer protections ranging from net neutrality to broadband privacy guidelines. "To win in this new world, we must continue to lower costs and keep getting faster, leaner, and more agile," McElfresh told employees. "This includes reductions in our organization, and others across the company, which will begin later this month and take place over several months."
While AT&T has yet to come up with a final, formal internal tally for this new round of looming layoffs, AT&T employees worry the staff reductions could prove to be significant, especially outside of these core areas. Managers are being briefed on the plans now, though AT&T isn't expected to formally announce the specifics until they're finalized later this month. The staff reductions were first announced in an internal memo sent to managers last Friday by Jeff McElfresh, President, Technology & Operations at AT&T. This news comes in the wake of AT&T receiving a $20 billion windfall last quarter courtesy of the Trump administration tax breaks. That's in addition to the friendlier environment AT&T finds itself in as a result of the Trump administration's assault on consumer protections ranging from net neutrality to broadband privacy guidelines. "To win in this new world, we must continue to lower costs and keep getting faster, leaner, and more agile," McElfresh told employees. "This includes reductions in our organization, and others across the company, which will begin later this month and take place over several months."
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Molopony on phacts (Score:1)
I think itâ(TM)s quite clear that we as a society are a bunch of fucktards and doomed to return to feudalism
Re: (Score:2)
So stupidity is the solution to avoiding that repeat behavior? Good to know.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. This amusement park ride has too much momentum.
Nope, not actually the problem (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is that power will not let you complain about this. You will be a radical, a communist, a know-nothing idiot who wants us back in the stone age or to give all your wealth to you, you greedy bastard....
The rhetoric is force fed to society. Same reason why society is "too stupid" to stop falling for religious woo (see the new agism bollocks, replacing christianity for those who find society able to let them stop falling for *christianity*, just not for woo "explanations").
It isn't that society is TOO STUPID, it's that the power structure is forcing a propaganda war to stop you complaining.
So you will blame the left, the right, the immigrants, the managers, the patriarchy, the SJWs, the blacks, the chinese, ANYONE but those who are running the propaganda because in a capitalist society money means power, so you cannot fight those with money, you cannot BLAME those with money. So you have to blame it on some other identifiable group. ANY group.
And, having misdiagnosed the problem, any fixes done to that problem will not fix the actual issue, and so it spirals out of control and we "fall for it again".
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that power will not let you complain about this. You will be a radical, a communist, a know-nothing idiot who wants us back in the stone age or to give all your wealth to you, you greedy bastard....
The rhetoric is force fed to society. Same reason why society is "too stupid" to stop falling for religious woo (see the new agism bollocks, replacing christianity for those who find society able to let them stop falling for *christianity*, just not for woo "explanations").
It isn't that society is TOO STUPID, it's that the power structure is forcing a propaganda war to stop you complaining.
So you will blame the left, the right, the immigrants, the managers, the patriarchy, the SJWs, the blacks, the chinese, ANYONE but those who are running the propaganda because in a capitalist society money means power, so you cannot fight those with money, you cannot BLAME those with money. So you have to blame it on some other identifiable group. ANY group.
And, having misdiagnosed the problem, any fixes done to that problem will not fix the actual issue, and so it spirals out of control and we "fall for it again".
Although I'm not a liberal I think one of the greatest slogans in recent times is "we are the 99%". I suspect that you like that notion too. However the 99% includes a great many Christians, a majority of white people, SJWs, both AntiFa and Nazis, and just about everything else under the sun. I don't like everyone in that mix however I have to put my dislike aside if the notion of stopping the 1% from taking everything is to be achieved. I mention this because the sooner we can keep the 1% from dividing us
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed with you and the GP but isn't the 1%, the 1% includes the top end professions which work their asses off to overachieve like engineers, doctors, lawyers (jokes aside), yes even middle management and sales people.
There are over 300,000,000 people in this country, using a value of 100th's is all about masking out the real divisions. The 1% are only part of the problem in that they are overtaxed and punished. They include all the people who really did work harder and earn their place looking at all the
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed with you and the GP but isn't the 1%, the 1% includes the top end professions which work their asses off to overachieve like engineers, doctors, lawyers (jokes aside), yes even middle management and sales people.
There are over 300,000,000 people in this country, using a value of 100th's is all about masking out the real divisions. The 1% are only part of the problem in that they are overtaxed and punished. They include all the people who really did work harder and earn their place looking at all the slackers around them. They also include the children of those who did so a few generations back.
The issue isn't the 1%, the issue is the top 0.1% by wealth not income and those who control an equivalent amount of wealth in any corporation.
I agree with you also that 'we are the 99.5%' is probably more accurate but the simplicity of 'we are the 99%' is awesome. It would be OK to have the tax rate dependent on a mix of income and assets (ie wealth). If I were emperor for a day I'd tax the hell out of trust funds, implement a wealth tax on anything that people might actually want (ie land, housing) and let the uber rich instead spend their money bidding up non-essentials like collectibles and art, and put in a heavy handed inheritance tax. Pl
Re: Molopony on phacts (Score:1)
They used to call it off-shoring. That must not have been obscure enough anymore.
Just say "No" to Trump 2020. (Score:2, Funny)
I don't think we can take much more of this winning.
Re: (Score:2)
When you take money from people against their will, you're going to allocate it badly.
Leave people alone.
That is not the lesson.
I think the lesson is more like, "Don't elect worshippers of Bullshit Mountain." Right now its more a republican thing, with of course the master bullshitter. It certainly doesn't have to be though, so be wary. Of course I also recommend not encouraging them to reproduce, but that is another matter.
AT&T lying should surprise no one. The government probably doing jack shit as the result, should of course surprise no one, which is a shame. A competent government would give them
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting.
Over here we elect them.
Re: Nope. I meant those "basic" services, too. (Score:2)
What's your alternative plan?
Re: Nope. I meant those "basic" services, too. (Score:2)
What do you think property is?
Re: Nope. I meant those "basic" services, too. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Move to other countries until you desire governance again. There are plenty of places you can find zero government intrusion into your life. Stop whining, get moving.
I hear Somalia is nice this time of year.
Somalia is a failed Communist State (Score:1)
Somalia is a leftist hell hole.
Somalia was a single-party, Big Government, centrally planned State run according to "scientific" Communism.
Naturally, it failed.
It's not surprising that a culture based on violent coercion produced warlords to fill the power vacuum after the fall (yet again) of a communist regime.
Nevertheless, some ancient tribal trading rules re-emerged; because they are quasi-capitalist, they've allowed the quality of life of the Somalian people to begin to rise, even surpassing the quality
Re: (Score:2)
So you'd prefer Haiti or Honduras as they are free-market hell holes. Got it.
Personally, I'd prefer a socialist hell-hole like Iceland, but I'm sure they aren't taking Americans as refugees because; "Hounded by AT&T billing department" isn't enough of a tyranny for them.
Re: (Score:1)
Of course, if complete morons that can't even avoid bankrupting multiple businesses have a finger in the financial pie, it will invariable turn into a shit pie.
Re: (Score:3)
better health insurance for less money. Yes some people did pay less and others had to pay more for REAL health insurance vs some of the old junk plans.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Trump's "Tax Reform" enriched himself and a few of his his billionaire buddies.
So yeah. A little different.
Re:Just say "No" to Trump 2020. (Score:5, Insightful)
ZERO loopholes were closed. (Score:1)
And more loopholes were added. Ones that benefitted him because it allowed more cash to be funneled through alternatives to salary, reducing the "wage" and therefore the income tax on it.
Try getting into reality. Even though it scares you, comforting lies just make you look like an ignorant asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
It was dry sarcasm but sarcasm nonetheless.
Really did need the /s
Re: (Score:2)
"Big Teach" wasn't enough of a giveaway?
Re: (Score:2)
/s is now mandatory as there are people who will unironically endorse the most stupid position.
People can't do a background check to determine sarcasm and apparently someone has a team of monkeys typing comments on Slashdote.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the whoosh is still yours. You were arguing with an obviously sarcastic post:
"Actually, "Tax Reform" under Trump did manage to close loopholes that allowed teachers to write off school supplies. For opponents of "Big Teach" this could be considered a big win."
You were "correcting" the attitude of someone by preaching the same stance they were already taking.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank God we've stopped teachers from writing off school supplies to help children of low income parents. I also hope they've reduced those onerous fines of $75 at the coal mines for not having an oxygen tank handy when someone takes it upon themselves to goof off and have a collapse and a lack of clean air.
The more we can clamp down on the excesses of the working poor, the more we can upgrade the quality of the single malt scotch.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously no sane person considers hampering education to be a big win but the real world is more complicated than just the immediate and obvious kneejerk.
There is a great reason to close these loopholes, doing so makes the current broken and horrible model of forcing teachers to buy these supplies untenable and will ultimately force it to change... unless some idiot steps in and reinstates these tax breaks in time for things to resume, business as usual. Sometimes you have to endure hardships or do somethi
Re:Just say "No" to Trump 2020. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
no, health insurance costs did not rise after the ACA. some 'budget' plans which were basically scams were dropped, and health provider costs _continued_ to rise as they had been for years before ACA.
Re: (Score:1)
Prove your argument;
https://ballotpedia.org/Health_insurance_premiums_before_and_after_the_Affordable_Care_Act
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
no, health insurance costs did not rise after the ACA. some 'budget' plans which were basically scams were dropped, and health provider costs _continued_ to rise as they had been for years before ACA.
You always post this looney left talking point, and it's not even remotely true. They weren't junk plans. I know plenty of people who lost good insurance and had trouble replacing it. Mary Katherine Hamm wrote extensively about the issues she had with health insurance, and I'd suggest you read her factual story to see what really happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Before Obamacare people would lose also their insurance and have difficulty replacing it. Obamacare did not suddenlly make this a thing. For any political stance here you can pick out a handful of case stories that "prove" that side is right, but that's a stupid way to deciding if it worked well or not. You have to look at the whole aggregate of the country, not just a story about your Uncle Fred.
Re: (Score:2)
nobody lost good insurance.
Re: (Score:2)
Being completely honest about this: yes health insurance costs did rise after the ACA. But the much more important point is that the rate of that rise was significantly lower than it had been before that, and even more significantly less than had been predicted before the ACA. That holds true even if you factor in the expected decline in health care expenditure due to the recession (people spend less on everything, including healthcare, so you have to handicap for that).
There are also a bunch of places wher
Re: Just say "No" to Trump 2020. (Score:3, Funny)
My health and body got worse under Obama. I feel like his Presidency aged me eight years. We are all closer to death because of it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
By contrast, while my health and body have gotten worse under Trump, I only feel like his Presidency has aged me two years. That's quite a contrast from the Obama legacy!
Re: (Score:2)
no. it wasn't.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a pretty good argument that both were bad moves. Is that what you're arguing? Trying to impose privatized socialized medicine is just a big mess of an idea and should never have been pushed forward. Single payer wouldn't have prevented all of the mess, but it can't have been as bad as what we got.
Most of the "growth" that the economy has shown were just big moves by big corps for show to help prop up the idea that the tax cuts were a good idea - just so that they can keep them. Nothing has cost
Re: (Score:2)
It's even cheaper to just run fiber to a cell tower and tell everyone that's their new landline - no matter how unreliable.
Mammoth Debt... (Score:5, Informative)
The poster fails to mention the $180B debt that at & t currently has and that as interest rates rise there's a substantial risk that the company could go bankrupt and need a bail out. They've already publicly committed to reducing their debt load by $20B in 2019 [cnbc.com]. They'll probably need to do a lot more to survive the next big credit crunch.
Re:Mammoth Debt... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bail out? Nah, the country would be way better off if we just auctioned off their assets to smaller companies would would take their place instead of subsidizing their bad behavior.
Re:Mammoth Debt... (Score:5, Funny)
Well, AT&T was already subjected to that fate, but then the parts seem to have reassembled themselves like the liquid metal robot from Terminator 2.
Re: Mammoth Debt... (Score:2, Insightful)
The T1000 has nothing on the monopolized market convergence lead to by capitalism, then stagnated by cronyism.
Re: (Score:3)
Because it isn't the same. Cronyism is getting the politicians to pass laws to rig the market in your favor. Capitalism is creating a better mousetrap so that customer's choose your product over the competitors.
Cronyism is indirect socialism, in that political favors take the place of consumer choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Cronyism is not socialism. Socialism is when the state controls the "means of production" (a.k.a. Capital), nominally for the betterment of all.
Cronyism is when individuals capture the power of the state to benefit themselves personally (and their associates... or cronies). Cronyism can me present in all forms of government that humans have yet tried. But the one most associated with it is Feudalism, where it is hard not to have it.
Re:Mammoth Debt... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, AT&T was already subjected to that fate
The AT&T that was broken up in 1984 was a DIFFERENT COMPANY.
SBC bought the rights to the AT&T brand and logo in 2005.
The heart of the original AT&T became Lucent Technologies, and then later Alcatel-Lucent, and I believe they are now part of Nokia.
Re:Mammoth Debt... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, it's far more complicated than you represent. Lucent was only one blob spit out from what remained of the core post-breakup AT&T telecommunications company, which itself executed many other acquisitions and spinoffs before SBC bought them (the whole company, not just their name). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Mammoth Debt... (Score:2)
I've personally worked on tracing the stock when it was broken up to today, for cost basis reasons.
I can tell you that some of the same people and assets came right back together again. It was like a vampire that was nearly dead but came back to life.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, AT&T was already subjected to that fate, but then the parts seem to have reassembled themselves like the liquid metal robot from Terminator 2.
I was thinking more like 80s cartoon robots :)
Re: (Score:2)
AT&T has 250,000 employees. If they fail:
The last two aren't interchangeable: executive mega-bonuses of a hundred million dollars divide up to around $400 per employee.
Debt debt debt (Score:5, Interesting)
Second time in a month that /. fails to think finances when it comes to corporate layoffs.
- AT&T and other large companies borrowed large sums at low interest rates over the last few years for stock buybacks.
- 2019 is a year with ~20 billion debt due for AT&T and little hope of refinancing it at rates anywhere near the current rate paid.
- AT&T is rated just above junk status and a balance sheet slip would put it into junk status and drastically raise the cost to finance dept.
- And many bond covenants have stipulations that the principle is paid faster if the company goes from investment grade rating to junk rating.
It's easy to look at via FINRA how the company debt vs maturity is trading versus risk free US Treasury issues of similar maturity and coupon rates. Trading at rates well above treasuries is a sign that the bond market thinks the company balance sheet is in poor standing.
A credit event like Long Term Capital Management, Lehman Brothers, etc would raise borrowing costs to 9% or higher per year and make it nearly impossible for AT&T to refinance its outstanding debt. Thus bankruptcy and likely like GM get bailed out by the US taxpayer with the nice for AT&T benefit of shifting its unfunded pension liabilities to the government run PBGC.
The credit event would sink stocks and nearly all bonds except for US Treasury bonds; slow the economy, hurt free cash flow, .....
Re: (Score:2)
... fails to think finances ...
No, we're thinking that management should be dismissed too. It's unfair to sacrifice the front line so managers can repeat their mistakes.
Re:Debt debt debt (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps they shouldn't have borrowed money for stock buybacks. Wasn't that illegal not long ago?
Re: (Score:2)
Their landline division has state granted monopolies in most of the USA. They legally have no landline competition within these areas, and they are losing most of these customers to death by old age.
So ban stock buy backs (Score:4, Interesting)
Folks like Liz Warren and Bernie Sanders would be happy to do this if we'd give them more left wing colleges in congress. But these are "Job killing regulations" right? Except that what's really killing jobs is that we let the ruling class gamble with all the money in the country and when they go bust they come out smelling like roses.
I don't think we can let them go bust, either. We're in a hostage situation and always will be without government oversight. We need new rules to protect jobs. To wit:
1. Ban Stock Buy backs.
2. Require public companies to have 50% employee representation on their board of directors or they don't get a charter (and the protections therein).
3. Bring back Glass-Stegal.
4. Undo Bush Jr's commodities market deregulation. Make folks who buy commodities take possession of them so they can't skim 10% off our food supply.
There's lots more. Liz Warren has a fairly comprehensive anti-corruption law she wants to enact.
Re:Mammoth Debt... (Score:5, Interesting)
Economucks (Score:1)
They put the "down" in trickle-down.
Manpower is never planned on tax breaks (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Companies look at the work that needs to get done, the money they have, they billing they expect and from there decide how much manpower they need. These companies are not going to hire people to sit on their thumbs doing nothing. So if they have to much manpower, they layoff.
I just have to ask if you were able to keep a straight face when you wrote this or did you just leave college?
Somewhere along the chain of command, usually multiple levels, a managers power and/or renumeration depends on the number of projects or people that report to them. This leads to a survival of the fittest environment within the company with each manager looking to scoop up the next upcoming project along with the associated resources. Or, as in one company I was contracting at, where the number of p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except none of what is going on here has anything to do with "enough people". The layoffs are monetarily motivated. The corp needs more money to finance its debt and will get it by laying people off. Whether or not those people were needed for anything is not of concern. If they were needed, the corp will "suffer" until it has enough money to hire people again. If they were not needed, then BONUS! They also got rid of dead weight... but again, that is not why any of this occurring.
Re: (Score:2)
You should tell the republicans that passed sweeping ridiculous tax rates for businesses under that premise then. When a multi-billion dollar company and multi-million/billionaires have effective tax rates lower than mine, something is broken.
The politicians know it is bullshit, as most of them are at least reasonably educated. It's the voters they pander to to get elected who need to learn this.
Good. (Score:1)
The tax break was a joke (Score:1)
So, this was expected.
AT&T Sucks (Score:2)
The staff reductions come despite billions in tax breaks and regulatory favors AT&T promised would dramatically boost both investment and job creation.
I guess my area will never get U-verse. It's been over 10 years and I keep receiving advertisements for their U-verse service.
But the best service I can get is their DSL at 6 Mbps for $40/mo.
Executive Bonuses all around! (Score:2)
Yo Yo (Score:2)
Of course they are! (Score:2)
Any excuse to maximize their bottom line!
Stupid cocksuckers...
Re: (Score:2)
You're right.
Please forgive me my tresspass!
Why not move out of NY and Washington DC? (Score:2)
A disappointing feature is the decision to concentrate there rather than to focus away from the overly expensive areas of NY and DC. This would help spread prosperity to other parts of the country.
AT&T is a bloated sack of decay (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What AT&T is ( likely ) doing (Score:5, Interesting)
This entire process is about the stupid amount of debt AT&T is now holding due to the recent buying spree it has been on as of late.
Here's a passage that isn't in the original story:
" It's critical for us to bring employees together to increase the pace of innovation and further develop the right skills in a more open, flexible and efficient work environment. Therefore, our collaboration zones and hub cities become even more integral. "
I read that as the whole " Office 2.0 " bullshit where your workspace is shared with everyone else. They like to claim " collaboration " but, in reality, they're just being cheap.
" further develop the right skills " is downright laughable as AT&T considers training an expense vs an investment. This is why you have the service you do because NO ONE is trained in how to do their job anymore so everyone basically wings it as best they can. Corporate will deny it, but ask any normal employee the last time they saw any standard / formal training* in regards to how to do their job and they will likely tell you Ed Whittacre was still the CEO.
*Some of you will question why this is needed, but remember new hardware arrives all the time. It's akin to being fluent in Cisco for years and they plop a Juniper down in front of you and say " make it work, we're shifting everything new over to Juniper ". When you put critical or customer traffic on this, it's rather important to know what you're doing. ( In my opinion anyway )
Another thing the original story is unaware of is the fact that AT&T is looking at all the real estate it owns ( and it's quite a bit ) to determine if any given building can be shut down and sold off. Basically, if the building doesn't contain enough critical infrastructure for serving the area it resides within, there's a good chance it's on the list. If it contains just a call center, there's a good chance it's already been sold. Their real estate is worth quite a bit and is probably the most efficient method of raising capitol needed to pay down that debt.
I say enough because there are several buildings that are already on the list to be vacated that DO contain systems that have to be moved before it can be sold. These buildings are basically regional locations where network connections across the State consolidate at the distribution layer. All of these connections have to be moved onto new architecture ( in progress ) and each location has a desired timeline for completion. We're talking hundreds and possibly thousands of sites that are fed from these locations that have to be moved. It will take a considerable amount of time ( several years ), money and people to complete.
The problem is, if they continue to slash headcount, they're not going to have enough people left to do the work required to meet those deadlines. As it stands today, with the current headcount, those deadlines are already in trouble. Telling them this tends to fall on deaf ears. Guess they'll figure it out when the deadlines come and go.
What tends to irk me most is:
They keep buying shit with money they don't have. ( DirecTv / Time Warner )
The money AT&T WASTED on the failed T-Mobile merger was ~$5B
The money AT&T wastes on stupid shit like " Stadium Naming Rights " and the like
An executives yearly bonus is more than a non-executive type makes their entire LIFE
Yet, laying people off is their go to answer for saving money :|
Trumpy (Score:2)
Aragorn's corporate code (Score:2)
Aragorn: Show them no mercy, for you shall receive none.
Corporations might promise the moon in exchange for tax breaks, but they'll never deliver: they are going to rationalize no matter what. If they convince you otherwise, it's because your cloudy Palantir has not yet detected the enemy's secret plan.
Or, you're a politician and you're embedded deep in the corporate kimono already, and you're just pretending to have a myopic Palantir, but in truth cash-on-the-barrel is 20-20.
Why!? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Also, the purpose of employment is the production of goods and services, not "keeping people busy". If AT&T can provide the same services with fewer people, that is a GOOD THING, because these people can be redeployed in other jobs were they will contribute to productivity.
Make work jobs are not "good for the economy".
Re: (Score:2)
yup, that's why super high unemployment is widely regarded as a positive sign for a 'winning' economy!!
Re: (Score:2)
It does! Any other explanation for the fact that when companies lay people off their shares go up?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about AT&T but if they're anything like my local Telco, they should be hiring people. Wind storm the other week wiped out most of the electric grid, Hydro had it fixed pretty quick, 3 days here, a couple of weeks in the more remote locations. Copper thieves hit here, a couple of days to restore service, and it's not like we had cell for backup. The other week they were telling people end of February before land lines or cell service restored.
Re: (Score:2)
What you say is true, but I don't recall the Trumperor running on that basis. Or anyone else, to be fair.
It was all about them thar chinkeys tekkin ur jerbs, wasn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, 'cos obviously the tax bill wasn't intended to, you know, actually help US workers.
no. these layoffs are just another example of President Dump's 'winning' economy. he has the best numbers, you know?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course that's what naturally happens in many companies. Layoffs will happen even if a company is profitable. The issue here is that AT&T claimed it would generate more jobs if only the government could give them tax breaks. The moral here is to not believe the lies that corporations tell, especially if you're a politician, and that tax breaks won't necessarily save jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
AT&T should either have laid these people off long ago and finally clued in to the shareholder money they've been wasting all this while, or they're pulling a stunt. I know where I'd put my money.
Companies don't lay off 1000s of people to "pull a stunt".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Moscow Donald Preps for Prison (Score:5, Funny)
Melania Trump, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington DC, 37188
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
$10,000 cash reward for the above person's real name and home address.
No questions asked.
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500
Now, where's my cash?
Re: Moscow Donald Preps for Prison (Score:1)
Ok.
shlorpshlorpshlorpshlorpshlorpOH PAPI
Now, hand over that address