Is it time for T-Mobile to unionize? The leaders of the company clearly don’t care about the employees.
Unionizing could slow down and complicate the process of mass tech company layoffs by introducing legal and financial barriers through collective bargaining agreements.
CWA & IBEW both have telecom representation.
@bg Keep telling yourself that as you continually get mowed over by your execs.
@xh Hint: We’re not trying to be successful. All your “success” does is enrich Deutsch Telekom.
IMHO, Unions dont add anything to the success of a business, they just add inertia to everything they touch while siphoning off money from members' paychecks. If you see Unions start to build in TMO, you'll see positions increase in right to work states and decrease in Union-security states, namely Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. Where physical bodies are required that can be outsourced.
@bb and the layoffs are not touching unionized employees. What is your point
Union is like another tax... if you don't mind more of your hard earned money going to fat cats to live off your money, then great!!
Connecticut switch already tried this, ask them how they liked it.
@bj An article from 2011?
https://cwa-union.org/news/entry/t-mobile_workers_win_union_voice_in_connecticut
”T-Mobile Workers Win Union Voice in Connecticut”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07gOjDotFM4
Unions were a great thing in 1940. Not today.
However with all the Communists being elected Mayor these days, it won't matter soon.
@bb great point! Here is the actual data from the Verizon Investor Relations 10-K reports.[1] Remember, VZ still has retirees on the Income Statement and Balance Sheet. Definitely affecting Operating Cash Flow.
| Year | EMP TOT | % REP | EMP REP | RET | [2]
| 1993 | 73,600 | 65 | 47,840 | NAV |
| 1994 | 72,300 | 65 | 46,995 | NAV |
| 1995 | 61,800 | 70 | 43,260 | NAV |
| 1996 | 62,600 | 70 | 43,820 | NAV |
| 1997 | 141,000 | 70 | 98,700 | NAV |
| 1998 | 140,000 | 69 | 96,600 | NAV |
| 1999 | 145,000 | 69 | 100,050 | NAV |
| 2000 | 260,000 | 53 | 137,800 | NAV |
| 2001 | 247,000 | 52 | 128,440 | NAV |
| 2002 | 229,500 | 49 | 112,455 | NAV |
| 2003 | 203,100 | 51 | 103,581 | NAV |
| 2004 | 210,000 | 48 | 100,800 | NAV |
| 2005 | 217,000 | 46 | 99,820 | NAV |
| 2006 | 242,000 | 40 | 96,800 | NAV |
| 2007 | 235,000 | 40 | 94,000 | NAV |
| 2008 | 223,900 | 38 | 85,082 | 213,000 |
| 2009 | 222,900 | 35 | 78,015 | 213,000 |
| 2010 | 194,400 | 30 | 58,320 | 215,400 |
| 2011 | 193,900 | 30 | 58,170 | 209,400 |
| 2012 | 183,400 | 29 | 53,186 | 205,600 |
| 2013 | 176,800 | 28 | 49,504 | 209,000 |
| 2014 | 177,300 | 27 | 47,871 | 209,000 |
| 2015 | 177,700 | 25 | 44,425 | 203,000 |
| 2016 | 160,900 | 23 | 37,007 | 201,000 |
| 2017 | 155,400 | 23 | 35,742 | 197,000 |
| 2018 | 144,500 | 23 | 33,235 | 195,000 |
| 2019 | 135,000 | 23 | 31,050 | 191,000 |
| 2020 | 132,200 | 23 | 30,406 | 190,000 |
| 2021 | 118,400 | 24 | 28,416 | 187,000 |
| 2022 | 117,100 | 23 | 26,933 | 186,700 |
| 2023 | 105,400 | 24 | 25,296 | 182,700 |
| 2024 | 99,600 | 25 | 24,900 | 179,700 |
Note [1]
https://www.verizon.com/about/investors/sec-filings
Note [2]
Column Descriptions: Total Employees, Percent Represented by CWA/IBEW, Employees Represented, Retirees on Benefit Plan (NAV = Data NOT Available
Verizon unionized and doing a 15k layoff
Unions only benefit the lazy and the fat cats getting rich off of the dues. Nope!