Thread regarding Verizon Communications Inc. layoffs

@dy Strayer must be a god awful university based on the verizon “leaders” that come from there. Mostly toxic yes people that would rather play politics with endless pointless reorgs than do anything of substance. And as we can see - the results speak for themselves losing market share, market cap and customer respect. Truly pathetic

@e0 Programatic DEI hiring of people such as you who can't or won't read will cost VZ government contracts and a large amount of money.

@d9 TLDR

@cr those are all gone. Hans was sure to not leave them behind in his office.

It is so obvious Verizon past 8 years under Hans has polluted Vz Mgmt ranks with DEI/Strayer online Directors and above.

Being a long time Verizon employee it's obvious merit base was for 1st/2nd level. Director and above were DEi centric and readers of powerpoint slides.

V has a real issue.. ability to compete and execute in a dynamic market.

The experience has been gutted and what is left is a Sr Executive Team that represents Noah Ark to support DEI.

It's tragic.

I’m just hoping GNT doesn’t fumble the 911 situation with the FCC.

Over the weekend, the Wall Street Journal ran an overwrought, protein-free thinkpiece headlined, “Justice Department Using Fraud Law to Target Companies on DEI.” The article radiated the familiar scent of elite panic—heavy on adjectives, light on understanding.The headlined news was that the United States Department of Justice has begun probing corporate behemoths like Google and Verizon Communications over their DEI hiring practices, using what the Journal portrayed as a dangerously clever, faintly sinister, and possibly unconstitutional legal theory.But —as usual— the Journal entirely missed the point.This story is not mainly about a clever legal trick. It’s about a long-planned strategic arc now reaching execution phase. The Journal described the move as novel, aggressive, even improvised. In reality, this has been mapped out for months, maybe longer. Possibly much longer.Here’s the part the Journal left out.The order directed federal agencies to insert two deceptively modest clauses into every new federal contract and grant. First, a statement that compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws is material to the government’s payment decisions. Second, a certification that the contractor does not operate DEI programs that violate applicable federal anti-discrimination laws.That’s the whole trick. And it’s a pretty neat one, too.Once a company signs that contract, every invoice becomes an express certification of compliance. At that point, what used to be an HR dispute quietly mutates into a fraud-on-the-Treasury problem. Employment law walks offstage; fraud liability strolls on stage, grinning in hungry anticipation.If a contractor’s DEI programs —its hiring quotas, promotion targets, leadership pipelines, supplier diversity mandates, internships, and fellowships— amount to unlawful race- or s-x-based preferences under Title VI, Title VII, or related statutes, then certifying compliance while still maintaining those DEI programs can be framed as a legally false claim under the False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. § 3729).And the False Claims Act is not merely a wrist-slapping statute. It carries treble damages, per-claim civil penalties, and the nuclear option: debarment — which means the loss of eligibility for all future federal work. Add the Act’s qui tam mechanism, and suddenly disgruntled employees, rejected applicants, and compliance officers can also sue on the government’s behalf. It could be a tsunami of litigation.“The financial consequences,” the Journal noted with admirable restraint, “can be significant.”Last week, Google and Verizon reportedly found themselves “among a list of companies that have received Justice Department demands for documents and information about their workplace programs.” Lawyers quoted by the Journal fretted that it was unusual to use antifraud law to pursue “hot-button conservative policy objectives.”Translation: this leverage used to be aimed only in one direction.“But now,” the Journal said, “the Justice Department is embracing the theory that holding a federal contract while still considering diversity when hiring is, in effect, fraud against the government that entitles it to recoup potentially millions of dollars.”It’s had a bracing effect on the federal contracting community. One employment lawyer said, “companies have been closely re-evaluating their workplace policies in light of the federal government’s stance.” I bet they have. Super closely.Democrats are now wailing that the federal government is “dictating” private companies’ personnel policies. What business is it of Washington, they ask, if corporations prefer certain races, genders, or s-xual identities over straight white males?The irony, of course, is exquisite.The anti-discrimination laws already exist—largely thanks to Democrats themselves. They simply never imagined those laws would be enforced neutrally, to prohibit discrimination against unfashionable groups. “Reverse racism,” when you strip away the euphemism, is just racism with better PR.If you take money from the federal government and sign a contract agreeing you won’t discriminate against any race, gender, or s-xual “identity,” then you must live with the contract’s terms. Nobody forced you to sign it.What we’re seeing isn’t improvisation. It’s patience. The new language required by Trump’s Executive Order went into federal contracts. The DOJ waited months while invoicing accrued. Internal Justice Department reforms proceeded quietly in the background. In the meantime it focused on DEI at colleges and universities.And now —after the corporate paper trail has ripened— they’ve sprung the trap.All across the country in corporate America, risk managers are screaming and hurling donuts and other baked goods at the HR department. Public companies, unlike activist nonprofits, owe duties to shareholders— and those duties do not include martyrdom for elite ideology.This might be the Trump Administration’s most effective anti-DEI move yet. And, despite the Journal’s framing as though this were some novel gambit Todd Blanche dreamed up over the holiday weekend, it has been enscribed in the playbook from Day One.

@cr lmao fully agreed. Vz wants yes people that will even demean themselves to play children’s games on company time to show compliance. Yet they have your voice matters to pretend they want free thinkers. People in the COE questioned the insane overlap for years and were completely belittled and ignored. Legacy leadership is what survived at the end of the day too. What a joke. Raid it all!!!

If it gets raided the feds should take the crayons, coloring books, and puzzles too

They’re making an example of Verizon. It’s going to be a big blow. Layoffs are the least of the worries

@c4 yes. More trimming needed

Should the DOJ proceed with a lawsuit, it will have a hard time proving that the government was intentionally defrauded.

However, if the DOJ prevails, the financial implications will be huge for the affected companies. The blow will especially be brutal for Verizon, which is already reeling from the effects of three straight quarters of customer losses and is scrambling to stage a turnaround.

@c1 problem is they didn't really trim the fat, they kept a lot of worthless trimmings/mgmt/"buddies"

@OP Verizon is and will do just fine. Big first step was trimming some of the fat. Still to much and even more up top

Banana republic

Well. If we were sold on there being more layoffs- here’s your answer. The outcome of this will determine how deep they will be

“ The blow will especially be brutal for Verizon, which is already reeling from the effects of three straight quarters of customer losses and is scrambling to stage a turnaround”

They’re going to bankrupt verizon

There was not enough free cash flow to start hence the 13,000 layoffs

They’re going to drive it down so hard they need to sell