40,000-plus AT&T staff threaten to strike Friday A union representing 40,000 AT&T Mobility workers is threatening a nationwide strike this weekend after negotiations with the telco stalled. The Communications Workers of America (CWA) said on Wednesday that union members in 36 states are set to join picket lines outside of AT&T retail stores this weekend if the company can't …
"I'm guessing A/C thinks that the shareholders of AT&T have more right to the $40 billion or so profit the company makes than any of the employees."
The maybe buy some shares then, if you think that is the path to riches. When employees are hired, they are hired for an agreed to amount. Shareholders get a portion of dividends, based on the number of shares. Everyone gets something. And if you think shareholders get a better deal, buy shares.
And also, AT&T only made $13.3B in 2016, on total revenue of $163.8B. First of all, that is a really a terrible margin. But it also shows that AT&T pays their staff a LOT, as most of the $150B spent, goes to staff.
"I'm guessing A/C thinks that the shareholders of AT&T have more right to the $40 billion or so profit the company makes than any of the employees."
I know right. If I invest my life savings to start up a restaurant, employees should get a huge slice of the pie even though they risked nothing. No, you're full of crap. The cost of hiring an employee is a lot more than just an hourly wage. Unemployment insurance, local and state and federal taxes, let alone all the insane regulations and the fines that go with them.Then you have food costs, throwaways, theft, insurance and countless other expenses. But in an entitlement world, everybody wants everything for free. Look, I don't own a business and I work for minimum wage, but I also appreciate how much it takes just to hire me. And I'm sick of us pointing the finger at the 1% because frankly, I know how much people at my level screw others over, including ourselves. Now excuse me while I soak up some government benefits because I'm entitled to them!
a wage is worth the work output. Pay people too much, and the company does poorly. A poorly run company goes out of business (or gets "gummint bailouts" if DemoRats are running the show).
If the people want MORE THAN THEY ARE WORTH, and walk out because of it, they should be "unceremoniously let go" (aka 'fired') and replaced with SCABS and SUB-CONTRACTORS.
it's like 'minimum wage'. it means your job will end if it costs more to hire you than you're worth.
Over the last 50 years I've watched unions dwindle as mammoth corporations arise and create new "McJobs" where they pay everyone a pittance and the high-ups live like kings. Add in the skyrocketing costs of renting someplace to live, and things are getting fairly grim for a lot of people. I think it's a lot tougher to be young and just starting out nowadays than it was when I were a nipper.
Can't speak for the UK, but in this country (USA), we need more unions to form and stand up for workers so they can earn a living wage. (Yes, Walmart, et al., I'm looking at you.)
As to what AT&T says, I wonder just how many of these striking people make "$115,000 to $148,000 in total compensation." Not very many, I'd wager.
Can't speak for the UK, but in this country (USA), we need more unions to form and stand up for workers so they can earn a living wage
The trouble is that we in the UK have seen the other side of the coin - the days when unions would cripple the whole country because of politics (and very little to do with defending their members).
As with everything, a balance needs to be achieved - neither the unions or the corporations should be too powerful because an imbalance of power results in corruption, greed and the more powerful imposing their will on the others.
So yes - I think we do need more unions - but not unions that exist only to support one political party. Unions that *actively* represent their members and don't just use them as counters in political games.
we're offering terms in which their members – some of whom average from $115,000 to $148,000 in total compensation – will be better off financially," a spokesperson told The Register.
That sort of statement is misleading. It can include health benefits and other like items, but those don't pay the bills...
"That sort of statement is misleading. It can include health benefits and other like items, but those don't pay the bills..."
While that might be a valid argument if you live in a country where healthcare is provided by the government, more or less for free*, in the US where you have to make your own arrangements then yes, these benefits certainly do pay some bills that you would otherwise need to find money for from your wage packet.
* If you live in such a country and don't think you're getting a good deal on health care, then I suggest you try taking a small animal to your local vet for a simple check up - that usually points out exactly how good the deal is for humans.
Many jobs are calculated at about 35% over the actual pay as part of the "Total Compensation" for reporting purposes. Makes it seem all that much more impressive when the reality is most of it is things like vacation days, sick days, personal time etc. So you can probably figure most of those 118K/year jobs are actually somewhere in the realm of 70-80K/year before taxes. And the term "some" could be 1 or two people, not representative of the whole union by any stretch.
"Many jobs are calculated at about 35% over the actual pay as part of the "Total Compensation" for reporting purposes"
last time I ran a payroll for myself (yes, business owners typically need to do that if you won't want to be sued by the government or audited) the burden was about 17% but it includes no "benefits", just payroll taxes and bank costs for check prep. It also excludes liability insurance, workman's compensation, and a few OTHER things you don't need if you have a home office where you live and you're the only employee of the corporation. Those costs can go up pretty high very quickly, especially in Cali-FORNICATE-You.
And when gummint IMPOSES those extra costs on employers (read: OBAKA"care"), one of two things have to happen: fire/terminate the employees and do the work yourself, and/or don't give them raises (or even LOWER the pay scale). You can't get money from nowhere to pay people with.
these are the realities of economics. It's why I voted for Trump. He obviously GETS IT.
AT&T is probably at the edge of profitability now. And last time I was in an AT&T store, I got some rather poor customer service. It might be time to get rid of those guys and hire people with proper attitudes, paying commission instead of salary.
some of whom average from $115,000 to $148,000 in total compensation
Got to love the weasel wording... "some of whom" is the key here... how many is "some"? I'd lay odds that it's very few and probably ones who are either a) close to retirement or b) will be the first laid off at the next blood-letting.
I'll say it loud enough to hear it in the cheap seats:
A! JOB! IS! NOT! A! DAMNED! ENTITLEMENT!!!
If the company does POORLY, you might lose your job! After all, a companay with NO MONEY can't pay people SQUAT.
That's the way it is for EVERYBODY. Deal with it.
(stupid unions, fire 'em all, hire scabs)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
