AT&T is laying off 12,000 staff and putting the blame on the economy and "a changing business mix". The cuts amount to roughly four per cent of the US telecoms giant's total workforce. The telco said it was moving to a more streamlined structure and would cut capital expenditure in 2009 - it is finalising budgets now and will …
Will make a nice bonus for somebody
At the top...how else do you think they pay those exec bonuses....screw the little guy. Next thing you know they'll have their hands out to the government for a pile of cash...oh, wait....shit.
RIF, QOS and manning
I find myself wondering if this means they will reduce Central Office staff from three to one, and that, on a 12 hour shift. What will that mean for quality of service?
I remember the Great DSL Rush being derailed for lack of installers.
Ah, but it would have been alot worse...
if they'd complied with the law and refused government wiretaps.
After all, these days, the ends always justify the means...the ends always justify the means...the ends always justify the means...hey - I'm beginning to believe it myself now.
As the US car manufacturing - bail out the execs and let the workers go? Or banking? Or trade? Or whatever? Actually not an US trend alone, seen all over.
Think - you make a mistake which causes problems, what's the result? You are fired, not rewarded! Now, you belong to the "old boy" network and make a mistake which causes problems, stock price going down, hundreds or thousands going unemployed, etc - you get the "socialist" government (oops, sorry, the US government) to bail you out so you can keep your houses, cars, servants, boats, whatever. And in case they have to let you go, you still have the "golden parachute" giving enough to live the rest of your life kind of well (very well)?
This is kind of funny(?), Register being in UK things are different. In Europe there is at least some level support for unemployed people, in US there is almost none. Even the unemployed counting is weird - after 6-10 months you are not any more counted as an unemployed in US? I just wonder what the real numbers are? I know about 90% of my friends in age group of 55 to 65 are unemployed but not counted! Just a couple of hundreds, what do I know? Actually even I wouldn't hire them today, the insurance costs for older workers go through the roof in US! Or maybe they know too much - some mishaps and problems in large (huge!) corporations show the total inexperience none of the persons I know would have allowed? The cost == millions??
Anyhow - very old issue. It's not really the corporations / companies but (mostly) the middle management which hire too many resources (headcount - headcount is power!) and then run to the trouble. Why this is allowed has always (over 35 years for me and for historians over 3000 years!) amazed me - and probably will next xxxx years!