from the workers-and-customers-still-getting-screwed dept.
39,000 Verizon employees, members of the Communications Workers of America or the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, have been working without a contract since August of 2015. A strike has been called for 6AM April 13. It will be the largest strike since August of 2011 whan, again, it was Verizon management refusing to bargain in good faith.
IBEW Local 827 reports
Verizon made $39 billion in profits over the last three years--and $1.8 billion a month in profits over the first three months of 2016--but the company is still insisting on givebacks that would devastate our jobs.
The company wants to gut job security protections, contract out more of our work, freeze our pensions at 30 years of service, shutter call centers, and offshore the jobs to Mexico and the Philippines. If we don't accept all of these changes, they will require technicians to work away from home for as long as two months at a time, anywhere in the Verizon footprint, without seeing their families. Verizon has also totally refused to negotiate any improvements in wages, benefits, or working conditions for Verizon Wireless retail workers who formed a union in 2014.
The company's greed is disgusting. [CEO] Lowell McAdam made $18 million last year--more than 200 times the compensation of the average Verizon employee. Verizon's top five executives made $233 million over the last five years. Last year alone, Verizon paid out $13.5 billion in dividends and stock buybacks to shareholders. But they claim they can't afford a fair contract.
And it's not just workers who are getting screwed. Verizon has $35 billion to invest in the failing internet company, Yahoo, but refuses to maintain its copper network, let alone build FiOS in underserved communities across the region. And even where it's legally committed to building FiOS out for every customer, Verizon refuses to hire enough workers to get the job done right or on time.
[Continues...]
Common Dreams adds
"More and more, Americans are outraged by what some of the nation's wealthiest corporations have done to working people over the last 30 years, and Verizon is becoming the poster child for everything that people in this country are angry about", said Edward Mooney, vice president of CWA District 2-13. "This very profitable company wants to push people down."
[...] Last month, 20 U.S. senators sent a letter to Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam calling on him to "act as a responsible corporate citizen and negotiate a fair contract with the employees who make your company's success possible."
Among those senators was presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who just last week called Verizon's behavior "unacceptable".
Related Stories
Verizon has announced that it will spend $300 million to replace copper cables with fiber optics in Boston, as well as expand Internet access and install "smart city" sensors:
Verizon and the city of Boston today announced a $300 million fiber optic cable replacement of copper cable throughout the city over the next six years. The project will increase Internet speeds and help Boston, which has 650,000 residents, expand broadband as part of its priority to ensure every resident has Internet access, Mayor Marty Walsh said in a statement on Tuesday. Business, schools, hospitals and libraries will also be connected.
Smart city elements will be added as well, including a trial project to reduce traffic congestion along Massachusetts Avenue. The city and Verizon will partner to experiment with sensors and advanced traffic signal technology to increase safety, measure bike traffic and improve public transit vehicle flow. Future smart city apps could include sensors for environmental conditions, energy efficiency and city lighting management. Verizon will also attach wireless equipment to city street lights and utility poles to boost wireless service for residents.
Related: Largest Labor Action in 5 Years Slated for Wednesday, April 13 Against Verizon
Since the queue is low, I figured I'd give this topic a try:
I'm sure many of you have been expectantly waiting for the annual report on Major Work Stoppages to come out. Thankfully, you will have to wait no longer.
Last year there were only 15 major stoppages, with the major one being the strike against Verizon (36,500 workers). Fifteen major stoppages is about middle of the road for the past twenty years, but there has been a downward trend since the US Bureau of Labor Statistics started keeping track:
1947-56: ~340/year
1957-66: ~250/year
1967-76: ~330/year
1977-86: ~140/year
1987-96: ~40/year
1997-2006: ~24/year
2007-16: ~14/year
Have you ever participated in a strike?
Are worker strikes an ineffective tool for change in modern times? Are there other reasons why workers do not participate in strikes?
Work Stoppages Statistics: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/wkstp.toc.htm
Verizon Strike: https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=16/04/12/107217
Union Membership Statistics: https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/union-membership-rate-10-point-7-percent-in-2016.htm
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strike_action
Reuters reports:
About 37,000 AT&T Inc (T.N) workers, or less than 14 percent of the company's total workforce, began a three-day strike on Friday after failing to reach an agreement with the No. 2 U.S. wireless carrier over new contracts.
This is the first time that AT&T wireless workers are on strike, which could result in closed retail stores during the weekend, according to the Communications Workers of America (CWA) union. The workers on strike are members of the CWA.
The workers are demanding wage increases that cover rising healthcare costs, job security against outsourcing, affordable healthcare and a fair scheduling policy.
Other coverage at UCOMM Communications Blog and The New York Times
Previously on SoylentNews: Largest Labor Action in 5 Years Slated for Wednesday, April 13 Against Verizon
[Ed. Note: This story was rewritten with a different source because the original story substantially altered the quoted material and contained a longer off-topic text than the section quoted. As always, the original submission is available at the link below.]
The Center for American Progress reports
The Teamsters union represents the 280,000 UPS employees who voted overwhelmingly in favor of going on strike[paywall] if a deal is not reached before the current labor contract expires on August 1. More than 90 percent voted for a strike.
Issuing a strike authorization vote does not necessarily mean UPS workers will order a work stoppage, but it does give the union leverage over management to win their negotiations.
[...] Since UPS began offering regular Saturday delivery service just a year ago, [demands on its labor force] have increased. While the company hasn't announced plans for Sunday service, the union claims UPS has made several proposals to expand weekend deliveries.
[...] The shipments [which] UPS transports comprise an estimated 6 percent of the United States GDP. A labor strike among the company's workers would have a sizable effect on the economy and would be the largest U.S. labor strike in decades. Three bargaining sessions ago, in 1997, UPS workers went on strike for 16 days, and there were 180,000 Teamsters at UPS at that time. There hasn't been a bigger strike since.
Coverage by the World Socialist Web Site is skeptical about the union's efforts and what will be the outcome. Not surprisingly, that article closes with:
There is no progressive answer to the continual lowering of living standards outside of the transformation of industry, communications, and transportation monopolies into publicly owned utilities under the democratic control of the working class.
Also covered at Fortune in UPS Has 260,000 Union Workers and They've Just Authorized a Strike:
The labor talks are proceeding amid discussions on pay and work schedules, as UPS looks to increase warehouse automation to keep up with surging demand from e-commerce shipments. The union has proposed increasing the part-time starting wage as well as improving the overall pay structure, according to a statement on its website. It's also pushing the courier to increase contributions to health and welfare and pension funds.
A previous "big" thing (39,000 workers): Largest Labor Action in 5 Years Slated for Wednesday, April 13 Against Verizon
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2016, @06:37PM
The original said
Largest Labor Action in 5 Years Slated for Wednesday, April 13 Against Verizon
That is, there has not been another action with anything like 39,000 workers striking ANYWHERE since 2011.
It -happens- that the previous record-setting strike was also due to the asswipes that run Verizon pulling the same kind of crap and that action involved the same workforce.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2016, @07:01PM
The version in our newspaper this morning (eastern USA) also noted near the end of the story that the current pay + benefits for the strikers exceeds $130K/year. So maybe they are already being paid enough? I'm all for unions when workers are really oppressed, but this may not be one of those cases...
As a Verizon land line customer, I'd be happier if they spent a little more on answering the phone. The techs seem to be doing a good job once they hear about a problem--it's the customer service (lack of) that doesn't seem to pass problems along to the actual service people.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday April 12 2016, @07:14PM
So maybe they are already being paid enough?
You forgot to ask if Verizon is already profiting billions a year!
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday April 12 2016, @07:24PM
OTOH, perhaps you need a better union or you need to take a job where you might find yourself in contact with 7200 volts.
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Tuesday April 12 2016, @11:53PM
If you come in contact, it doesn't matter how much they paid you... because you'll be late, as in the late sjames... :-)
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday April 13 2016, @01:03AM
Sure, it's inadvisable to say the least. That's why they have to pay people better if there is a risk of it.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Zanothis on Tuesday April 12 2016, @07:30PM
It seems that a $130k/year technician probably isn't a part of this group:
They're more likely to have a problem with:
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2016, @07:43PM
Plus, the $130k/year technician is really ~$65k/year technician in terms of salary.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2016, @07:32PM
Stock buybacks add no value to the actual company.
A company that has that much spare cash can certainly afford to GIVE SOME OF IT TO THE PEOPLE WHO -GENERATE- THAT WEALTH.
My thinking is that there should be a tax on stock buybacks that is high enough to discourage that behavior.
The differential between the managers and the staff was also mentioned.
Is there someone in -your- company whose output is worth 200x what you make?
It was also mentioned that Verizon management has decided to NOT invest significantly in the expanding/upgrading infrastructure.
As such, their customers are getting screwed too. Surprise!
Poorly-regulated Capitalists doing what poorly-regulated Capitalists do.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2016, @08:54PM
I realise that gewg isn't interested in reality, but for those of you who maybe are confused by the Demon of the Stock Buyback, here's an intro:
The accounting equation is (depending on how you permute it):
E = A - L
That is, Equity (the value of anything from a mom-and-pop through to a multinational) is equal to your Assets (everything from debts owed you, through corporate jets, through buildings, to simple cash on hand) minus Liabilities (everything you owe, whether mortgages, credit cards or accounts payable).
What about shares? What do they represent? They're pieces of the Equity. People buy a chunk of the company, and they have ownership of that much of the assets, minus liabilities. Companies issue stock to raise cash for things they want to do, with the idea being that people will pay for a cut of the action (usually in the form of dividends).
But once in a while a company wants to move in the opposite direction. Why might they do that?
First, they might look at the stock value, and think that the valuation is too low. It might make sense to buy back shares now, in the interests of selling them again later for more money, so that they can raise more capital for the next phase of ... whatever that company does. Buy low and sell high applies to shares as much as anything else, after all.
Second, it might herald a pivot in the company. They might look around, see a shrinking market and a pile of cash, and instead of having a champagne party they let investors cash out in an orderly fashion, and pull back to a more modest size until they figure out where they're going next. This can prevent their price/earnings ratio from turning to crap, thus illustrating responsible and farsighted management.
Now, I'm not saying that the people at the head of Verizon aren't chimps on crack - I don't think that they are, but I can't prove it - but the mere existence of a stock buyback does not indicate that there's a sacrificial pyramid where the souls of workers are torn from their screaming bodies. The mere existence of a pile of cash doesn't mean that it should automatically go to the workers (or the stockholders, or anybody in particular). All I'm saying is that there are rational, well-articulated reasons to have stock buybacks, it's not inherently shady.
Moreover, the idea of taxing stock buybacks is only sensible if you actively want companies to be roach motels for money, because then you'll be double taxing that money which is actually a pretty bad idea. At that point it would be actively insane to have stock buybacks - but that would also reduce the value of shares, which would shaft a hell of a lot of ordinary stiffs whose personal investments, life insurance, pensions and so on depend on those stocks.
As a footnote, I agree that Verizon is poorly regulated. I've had some contact with the regulations that Uncle Sam puts around telcos, and they are piss-poor. Voluminous enough to choke an elephant, but really terrible. It absolutely makes sense to rationalise those, but of course that would mean less money for bureaucrats, so ... never happen.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2016, @09:33PM
You are clearly a Neoliberal who holds that unearned income (gained without PRODUCING anything) is equal to earned income.
Arguing with someone whose ideas are so completely perverse is very difficult.
Stock buybacks mostly benefit very large stockholders.
They DON'T make the company more competitive via e.g. investments in infrastructure.
They DON'T put money into the pockets of working people who would spend that cash into the economy.
They are a BAD idea.
I agree that Verizon is poorly regulated
We'll have to be contented with that small overlap, I guess.
...and having anti-trust stuff on the books but NOT ENFORCING that stuff makes the gov't a laughingstock.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 13 2016, @02:37AM
I can't speak for anyone else, but what's the different kind of income in your world?
See, if I spot someone a couple of benjamins on the understanding that I'll get an extra twenty back on top, it seems to me that I'm accepting a risk. If rewarding risks is outlawed, you've just cut the legs out from every entrepreneur (yes, even the virtuous basque country cooperative ones) in the world. Or you can do it like Islam says, and outlaw interest, but give an equivalent in terms of part ownership, which in the business world looks a hell of a lot like a stock investment ...
And of course, once you accept the principle of payment for any kind of risk (whether it's the risk of losing money, or losing your limbs in machinery) I don't see that one set of dollar bills is somehow more virtuous than any other. You're trying to put the Noble Worker on a pedestal, compared to the Wicked Financier, but in the real world the Evil Money Merchant is often the person responsible for letting the Noble Worker get that Noble Work in the first place. No investment, no industry. By that standard, stock buybacks are not only unremarkable, but actually useful and productive ways of reallocating cash from one business that doesn't need it, to another that does.
But sure, bind all money to its Final Destination in corporations, see how that works for you. You'll excuse me if I see how it works for you before I come out in support.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 13 2016, @08:38PM
Ah, another someone who thinks that speculators are some kind of elevated caste.
So then, folks who go to Vegas and put $50 on number 21 are to be celebrated as "venture capitalists".
This guy covers this topic well.
I entitled his page How The World Economy Became Such A Mess (John Bates Clark Said There's No Such Thing As Unearned Income). [archive.is]
The author equates the FIRE sector with "pickpockets" and a "robber" who have an occupation that transfers wealth but ADDS NO VALUE to the economy.
It is infered (but never stated outright) that it's the Broken Window Falacy at play.
That the FIRE sector, WHO PRODUCE NOTHING, is now 60 percent of the economy demonstrates how perverse things have become.
Apparently, there are folks who think that when they get to be 100 percent of the economy, that will be ideal.
.
Another item I spotted that I'll leave here.
Five Reasons to Care About Verizon Contract Negotiations [commondreams.org]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14 2016, @03:45PM
What are you talking about? I read the foregoing comments, and nobody said anything about elevation of speculation at all.
Oh, and if you can't tell the difference between investment and gambling on the spin of a wheel, that really illustrates how little you really understand. I'm going to assume that was just a sarcastic aside on your part, rather than a statement of conviction.
The finance industry in general has a very important function - that of getting productive assets (mostly but not exclusively money) where it's the most use, when it's the most use. Futures, often derided as the worst of the worst in terms of unproductive trading, were actually created because farmers needed to stabilise their incomes compared to the famine-or-feast that cyclical harvest times were producing. No cooperative or collective or other structure makes Mother Nature's cycles change, but at least a recognition of the time value of money and an ability to trade on that reduces the pain.
Summary: just because you don't (or more likely don't want to) see the benefit of financial services in general doesn't mean that they don't exist. You need to learn more.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Peristaltic on Tuesday April 12 2016, @08:04PM
I'm all for unions when workers are really oppressed, but this may not be one of those cases...
"Really oppressed", you say- I'd say that's a disingenuous statement, at best. If a company was struggling, certain labor concessions might be reasonable. With $1.8 Billion in profits each month this st quarter, I would say that Verizon's labor demands are a bit on the high side, if this quote is true:
The company wants to gut job security protections, contract out more of our work, freeze our pensions at 30 years of service, shutter call centers, and offshore the jobs to Mexico and the Philippines. If we don't accept all of these changes, they will require technicians to work away from home for as long as two months at a time, anywhere in the Verizon footprint, without seeing their families.
How far does a company have to go, in your opinion, before the people that work for it are justified in pushing back?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Tuesday April 12 2016, @09:22PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday April 13 2016, @01:40AM
I see where you're coming from. And, your view is somewhat skewed. The EMPLOYEES have no OWNERSHIP in the company, unless they own stock.
If I hire you to do "landscaping" at my home (or you hire me), that doesn't give you any equity in my home. Let's say that you work at my place 8 hours per week, and we agreed that I'll pay you $160/week for your services, you supply any tools and equipment needed. After some years, you ask for more money, pointing out that my home's value has increased by a huge perecentage. You also point out that I've been promoted, and I make a lot more money. And, I ask, "WTF does all that have to do with the value of YOUR WORK?!?!"
You have no equity in my home, my banking, my pension, nothing.
It doesn't MATTER that Verizon has made a lot of profit.
Again, the labor market today is a buyer's market. Unless you OWN something, you have no voice in it. Verizon has a zillion dollars, and the union has no ownership in it.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday April 13 2016, @08:32PM
Absolutely. Because you probably didn't get your promotion because of how great your landscaping looks.
Verizon's revenue, however, is *entirely* due to the work of their employees. Without your landscaper, your salary wouldn't change one cent. Without their employees, Verizon's revenue would decrease by about 100%.
If your landscaper does teach or give you something which directly leads to you getting a promotion then the guy certainly deserves to be compensated for that. Likewise, if Verizon's employees manage to bring in a few billion a month in profits, they should be compensated as well.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jdavidb on Tuesday April 12 2016, @09:20PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2016, @10:18PM
I find it odd when people are not only OK with Capitalism but they are not offended when other people who are NOT actually PRODUCIMG the organization's goods|services are better-compensated than the producers.
Your level of regimentation re: the Strict Father model [wikipedia.org] reminds me of a great movie line:
"You must have been toilet trained at gunpoint."
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Tuesday April 12 2016, @10:37PM
I find it odd when people are not only OK with Capitalism
It's okay with me if you find that odd.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 13 2016, @12:04AM
I find it odd when people are not only OK with Capitalism but they are not offended when other people who are NOT actually PRODUCIMG the organization's goods|services are better-compensated than the producers.
And you shouldn't be either. Let us keep in mind that the producers wouldn't be producing without those "other people". This is one of the cases where there is something more valuable than being a cog in a machine.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 13 2016, @04:08AM
the producers wouldn't be producing without those "other people"
You just can't manage to expand your narrow thinking beyond top-down systems.
I've mentioned Mondragon multiple times in this (meta)thread.
Everybody there is a worker bee.
There are no overpaid dead-weight overlords.
No non-worker stockholders involved either.
I often mention the thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of worker co-ops in northern Italy.
No dead weight in any of those either.
(Heh, got those guys into this thread too.)
Currently, the last comment in the (meta)thread mentions REI, the camping equipment vendor.
Same deal with them; no ridiculously overpaid suits there either.
There are gobs and gobs of co-ops. [google.com]
Food co-ops are as common as sparrows.
Same for credit unions.
There's a bunch of energy (electricity) co-ops that are the spiritual decedents of FDR's Rural Electrification Administration.
...and on and on and on.
All of those folks have figured out how to get things done without overpaid non-essential parasites in the loop.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 13 2016, @05:17AM
OK, so I have a question.
Serious question, and I'm genuinely curious.
What co-op are you starting/running right now?
What does it do?
How successful is it?
If it's successful and productive and stable, how can I join?
Details, please. Include addresses/contact information for applications. I don't live in Spain, so Mondragon is out of the question for me.
Thanks.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 13 2016, @11:21AM
You just can't manage to expand your narrow thinking beyond top-down systems.
I've mentioned Mondragon multiple times in this (meta)thread.
Sure, but even in Mondragon's case you have someone organizing those worker bees. Humans have been worker bees for hundreds of thousands of years. That was good enough for stone axes and cooked meat.
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Wednesday April 13 2016, @11:57AM
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Wednesday April 13 2016, @11:29PM
Laws that prohibit cable laying and regulation to make it all expensive?
(Score: 1) by WillAdams on Wednesday April 13 2016, @06:12PM
It'd be nice if the pay slope were a bit less steep all around.
Excellent article on a wonderful company where the pay slope is written into the bylaws:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/how-one-company-levels-the-pay-slope-of-executives-and-workers/article15472738/ [theglobeandmail.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jdavidb on Wednesday April 13 2016, @12:27PM
I find it odd when people are not only OK with Capitalism but they are not offended when other people who are NOT actually PRODUCIMG the organization's goods|services are better-compensated than the producers.
I currently work in a small startup company of about 8 employees. In this environment, it is very clear that the co-owners, one of whom is CEO, are producing immense value. They deserve everything they get. The idea that owners and high level managers aren't producing value is completely subjective.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday April 13 2016, @01:21AM
No, I haven't read the fine print, but the issue doesn't seem to be raises, so much as job security. Verizon wants to subcontract stuff out - meaning, they intend to undermine the union. So, the union gets a little sympathy from me. However, the union doesn't get a lot of sympathy from me. The union didn't give a damn when non-union workers were put out of work over the past decades. Where were they when the various trade agreements were negotiated? Did they speak up when NAFTA, CAFTA, or any of the other deals were put in place?
It's kinda late now. In the labor market, it IS a buyer's market today. For every decent job, there are at least qualified applicants. For every GOOD job, there are at least twice that many qualified applicants.
Like I say, I have some empathy and sympathy for the union, but the unions have been part of the problem all along. The steel workers kicked off the offshoring of American jobs long ago, when they refused to be reasonable. All the rest of industry took their cue from the steel industry. "Oh, wow, if the steel industry can move to India to find to cheap labor, why can't we?"
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday April 13 2016, @09:01PM
They almost certainly did, although I can't find anything really specific because it's all getting drown in the search results by all their more recent protests and statements issued against the TPP (they like calling it "NAFTA on steroids").
http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Political-Action-Legislation/The-Many-Shortcomings-of-the-U.S.-NAFTA-Style-Trade-Model [aflcio.org]
http://cwa1104.com/updates/news/tpp-nafta-steroids-lets-stop-it [cwa1104.com]
http://www.cwa-union.org/news/article/jobs_lost_due_to_nafta_and_china [cwa-union.org]
And it also may be worth noting that the AFL-CIO (which the CWA is affiliated with) is *still* speaking out against NAFTA:
http://www.aflcio.org/Issues/Trade/NAFTA/NAFTA-at-20 [aflcio.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday April 14 2016, @01:34AM
Obviously, I erred on the union position.
But, like all the rest of us, they've spoken up to little and to late.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 13 2016, @06:55AM
OMG, April 13 is a Wednesday? Who knew!
(Score: 2) by martyb on Wednesday April 13 2016, @02:04PM
You are an active contributor to this site and I appreciate your contributions. Your story submissions often lead to discussions that I find enlightening.
Yes, I did change the title to be "Largest Labor Action Against Verizon in 5 Years Slated for Wednesday, April 13" (though it appears that it has been changed back to the original submission.)
I followed the links provided in the story and saw nothing there that could justify the statement that it was the "Largest Labor Action in 5 Years" implying the largest in the entire world over the past five years. In other words: Citation Needed. Even here, I see the claim repeated but I see no substantiation. If there was a link provided that did substantiate the claim, I'd appreciate your pointing it out so I can learn from my mistake.
Given a submission from a user who has an account on the site, I have some options for soliciting feedback. I can send an e-mail (to the address they used to create the account.) I can now also send an on-site message. But, submissions without an account connection block me from soliciting information from the submitter by these means.
So, I have an interesting, time-sensitive story in front of me and am faced with a decision. Should I run the story as-is, edit it, or not run it at all. I chose to edit the story and make a change that, given the information provided, could be justified: that it was the largest labor action by Verizon in the last 5 years. I'll be the first to admit that I have made mistakes when editing; the community has taken me to task on my mistakes, and rightly so. Given the forgoing, barring any information to the contrary, I stand by the decision to change the title as I did.
Please let me repeat that I DO appreciate your submissions and comments -- they are thought-provoking and often lead to discussions from which I learn a great deal -- I look forward to your next submission.
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14 2016, @03:26AM
Yeah, I looked at a bunch of pages before linking to those 2.
Clearly, I lost track of which site(s) noted the noteworthy-by-size-and-rarity nature of the event.
The page title got switched back so quickly that I wonder how many folks even got to see what I was bitching about.
Allowing for the occasional retrograde burp, I think we're all getting better at this.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2016, @07:25PM
an improvement in service that day.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by jmorris on Tuesday April 12 2016, @07:33PM
Who cares how much money Verizon makes? What does that have to do with employee compensation? Supply and demand regulate wages, or should. If the market will only fill those positions if they pay more, then they will pretty quickly pay more and regardless of Verizon's profitability. If they need the workers and must pay more to get them, they will raise prices or cut costs elsewhere. On the other hand, if the supply of skilled labor willing and ready to take the positions at the $130K others here claim is the average pay currently is plentiful, then they won't be getting raises regardless of profitability. This is reality.
Workers do not get compensated on profitability, shareholders do. If they want to be rewarded when Verizon makes profits they should consider owning the stock, odds are the company has a payroll deduction program for that. But most financial planners discourage it because it ties both your investments and your employment the performance of a single company.
This is the problem with 'organized labor' in general, a lack of connection with reality. Labor unions are a evil thing anyway if you think about it. There are only two options, they have a government mandate or they don't. If they don't threats of violence is their only leverage. With government backing it is the threat of government violence. Either way it is nothing less than seizing the means of production. Theft.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2016, @07:46PM
Ah yes, the great defender of the United Pyramid Schemes of America. Buy into the dream, one day YOU could be the lord on high sucking on all the sweet profits generated by others.
It seems you are the one disconnected from reality. The game is rigged, the players on top stay there, and a very select few will climb the ladder. But please, lecture us some more on how these corporate "persons" are a natural extension of reality. Get your head out of the sand, there are worlds of possibilities open to us. Jump out of the fish tank, maybe then you'll see "reality" for what it is.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday April 13 2016, @01:49AM
Okay - the system is corrupt. But, the unions are corrupt as well. So, what do we do? We turn to socialism? Screw that - the two "greatest" socialistic nations have rejected communism for a reason.
For all of it's evils, capitalism still kinda works in an almost logical manner.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by turgid on Tuesday April 12 2016, @07:54PM
Who cares how much money Verizon makes? What does that have to do with employee compensation?
Er, um, let me see now, I know! Because without those employees, Verizon would not be able to make any money!
Supply and demand regulate wages, or should.
But is doesn't though, does it? Because the wealthy have the "free market" rigged all in their favour (flexibility we call it in the UK, you call it "At Will.") Checks and balances are needed. Unions are part of the checks and balances.
How can anyone own a home or bring up a family if unemployment is a phone call away?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Tuesday April 12 2016, @08:09PM
It is the dead hand of government (and unions which are their creature) which inhibit the law of supply and demand.
you call it "At Will."
Depends. Some employees are "At Will" other get contracts. Depends on a lot of factors, if both sides are willing to agree to "At will" they should be free to do so. If workers want the security of a fixed contract the question is what are they willing to trade for that in the compensation package? And sometimes it is the employer who wants to lock an employee into a contract, and again if both sides come to an agreement then who has a right to object?
How can anyone own a home or bring up a family if unemployment is a phone call away?
We live in a fast changing world. The time where a young man left school, went to work in the hometown factory and retired from it are gone. Good, bad, doesn't matter, it just is. Not that the management has it much better, mergers, reorgs, bankruptcy, offshoring whole divisions eliminating management as well as workers, forced relocations. And even a CEO can be toast with a couple quarters of "below market expectations" earnings reports. The invisible hand sorting out the wheat from the chaff.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2016, @08:22PM
Please stick your head in the chaff, save us from your dystopian ideologies. Natural selection! Darwinism! The strong eat the weak! How short sighted and actually stupid. Not an insult, stupid as in ignorant and doesn't care to learn/change.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2016, @08:43PM
> It is the dead hand of government (and unions which are their creature) which inhibit the law of supply and demand.
You are as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Even Adam "Wealth of Nations" Smith knew that labor unions were a necessary part of a capitalist system, he was even explicit that labor was at an unfair disadvantage in any contract negotiations because most labor lives hand to mouth, but also in the way the capitalists capture government regulation for themselves.
What are the common wages of labour, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labour.
It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, a merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate.
— Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 8, Of the Wages of Labour [geolib.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2016, @09:01PM
That's, at best, an argument for unions or some equivalent. Sure, agreed, and there's nothing weird about that.
However, nothing about that suggests in any way that we should have forced union membership, or permit union monopolies on given fields of employment. Right now if the United Brotherhood of Soylents is a corrupt vessel of organised crime, I can't quit and join the Brotherhood of United Soylents.
There are lots of other complaints as well, but while Adam Smith correctly diagnosed this particular problem our current answer clearly is not a good one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 13 2016, @12:05AM
> nothing about that suggests in any way that we should have forced union membership, or permit union monopolies on given fields of employment.
It's funny how the weakest people in a society are always expected to be exemplars of perfection, be it morality, work ethic, professionalism or organization while the powerful are held to no such standard.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 13 2016, @03:49AM
"It's funny how the weakest people in a society are always expected to be exemplars of perfection, be it morality, work ethic, professionalism or organization while the powerful are held to no such standard."
Riiiiight.
Seriously?
The coworker who bitches about everything I do all the time because I don't always agree with him.
The coworker a couple of years back who just outright stole my stuff. Not even forgot to give back - deliberate outright theft. Or for that matter, the coworker who stole company equipment to feed his meth addiction.
Maybe you mean the one with such huge personal hygeine issues that everyone refused to be in conference rooms with him? Or the one whose every response to any slight, real or imagined, was to rant about slavery and privilege and white power until she got promoted? How about the one who just vanished for six weeks, no notice given, apparently to go on some kind of vision quest while everyone else tried to cover? Or the one who was trying to collect kiddie porn but was so mob/union connected he was untouchable?
The only one who, to my knowledge, had a brush with the law was the meth addict, and that's because he was actually caught on camera. The only one who got fired was the guy who vanished for six weeks. The rest of them? Doing just fine, thanks, for behaviour ranging from the mildly annoying to the criminal.
I wish those were the only examples I could think of. Alas, there were others ... but yeah, I don't believe a word you say. Sorry.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 16 2016, @09:32PM
And why should we believe a word of yours?
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday April 12 2016, @09:21PM
So? Adam Smith wasn't the last word on economic theory, merely an early one.
If your goal is minimizing the fascist tendency of government and industry to get into mutually beneficial dealings at the expense of customers, employees and citizens, then deal directly with that problem. Giving the government more power (all union power comes from the government, directly or indirectly when the government willingly turns a blind eye to union violence) is not likely to solve a problem.
Smith's notions of the power imbalance between labor and capital are as much a captive to his times as Marx's. Both wrote at a time when there was an all but insurmountable imbalance between supply and demand in the labor market. In the West today, with our declining birthrates and population estimates, that is no longer the case. Assuming of course we avoid the idiocy of importing half the third world. As to the quoted material about organizing, he was obviously not successful in prediction to our day, where capital 'colluding' is illegal and labor doing so is not merely permitted it is mandated by law.
If labor wants to organize in a morally acceptable way the current union is not it. A group of workers can form a corporation to provide labor at standardized prices and tend to compensation and HR issues. I.e. current employers would 'outsource' to your employee co-op. Just do it on the open market without a government monopoly. Of course we already have such things and most people don't like working the temp game. So keep tweaking the model until you achieve success in the market.
(Score: 2) by rondon on Tuesday April 12 2016, @10:06PM
If all union power comes from the government, so too does all corporate power come from the government. The argument holds no water.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday April 12 2016, @10:33PM
Nope. Capital gets it's power by the power of unconsumed production and the magic of compound interest. I.e. by saving instead of consuming, then investing those saved resources to raise productivity with a goal of increasing the investment. That in a sentence is the essence of our civilization. I do favor some reform of current public corporations but plenty of successful Capitalist activity took place before them and does now. All union power comes from the government granting a monopoly to it. If employers are free to contract with multiple unions or ignore them and directly deal with employees, the union quickly becomes an impotent shadow of its former power. It is only when the government allows a union to basically seize the means of production that it acquires power. Thus it is demonstrated they are creatures of the government.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday April 13 2016, @01:53AM
Actually corporations are a governmental construct, and corporations do derive much of their power from government. If that weren't so, we wouldn't be plagued with lobbyists in Washington.
(Score: 2) by rondon on Thursday April 14 2016, @05:44PM
Thank you Runaway, you did a better job of making my point than I did. I'm afraid I was a bit too succinct.
(Score: 2) by rondon on Thursday April 14 2016, @05:49PM
I said corporate power, not capital power.
That being clarified, groups of people who organize themselves will generally have more power than one individual in that group would have otherwise. Therefore, not all union power comes from the government, some of it necessarily comes from the people who joined the union. Of course, I think we both drifted off into semantics land, so let me trek to the logical conclusion: in societies where the government does not allow any accumulation of capital, corporations do not exist. Therefore, all corporate power must come from the government.
Unfortunately, I believe I have just convinced myself that all legal power comes from the government, which makes me sad.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday April 13 2016, @12:54AM
What exactly do you call "violence"?
If it's something criminal then the govt wrong in closing the eye to it.
If it's not criminal (e.g. the right to assemble), then it is NOT the government that allowed them this power, it's their fundamental human right.
(human rights aren't granted, you don;t need to list them in a Constitution)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday April 13 2016, @01:47AM
Do you even know the history of the organized labor movement?
It was bloody from the beginning. At first the owners were able to fight back (hire goons) and the fights tended to go against the early union leaders a lot. As they gained political power though the government basically extended their monopoly on the use of violence to them. Unions could terrorize scabs, management, whoever and essentially be immune from law enforcement while management would not only be criminally liable but civilly as well. Any organization that can successfully claim a monopoly on the use of violence IS a government in everything but name. Eventually the power relation was formalized in law, any shop that had a vote of the workers legally seized from the owners (without compensation of course) the concession on all future labor. From that day on all labor had to be purchased by / through the union. But violations would no longer be met with union violence but legal action and legal penalties. Further minor violent outbreaks continued intermittently until the current day when the union movement is fading into an end.
These days it is mostly government workers themselves who are unionized and thus it is the government machinery negotiating with itself to decide how much to demand the legislature tax the hapless citizens... at gunpoint. Violence or the threat of it is always at the heart of unionism.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday April 13 2016, @02:13AM
I don't care how it was in the beginning, I asked how it is now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday April 13 2016, @02:27AM
>blockquote>Violence or the threat of it is always at the heart of unionism.
Maybe in your corner of the world.
In other parts of this world [google.com.au] union can negotiate in good faith [europa.eu]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday April 13 2016, @03:08PM
Tried the first link....
The second one works. Yea airline workers know the drill now, airlines are a way to turn billionaires into millionaires and everybody down the line gets screwed as that process continues to grind on. But knowing the reality they know it is pointless to protest, a strike would only put them out of work sooner. The airlines, as currently constituted, could only exist as government vanity projects or monopolies, once we deregulated the industry across most of the world and allowed market forces in most of the thing was exposed as an uneconomical money pit. The price people are willing to pay to fly is unequal to the expenses of running an airline. The Powers That Be like to jet around though, and more important believe having the masses keep flying is important to their political goals, so various ways will be found to minimize the bleed so everyone can still do it a bit longer.
In a sane world most people would travel long distances by train. Even building a tunnel between Alaska and Siberia would be more economical than flying all those people around in jets. But we subsidized air travel for so long that passenger rail atrophied in most of the world, especially here in the U.S.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday April 13 2016, @09:51PM
Yea airline workers know the drill now, airlines are a way to turn billionaires into millionaires and everybody down the line gets screwed as that process continues to grind on.
True, but my main point is: negotiation not violence saved SAS.
Subscriber-only article:
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday April 13 2016, @11:11PM
Note the similarity in your examples. Both so obviously near death that the unions couldn't do their normal hate on fatcats, and a strike was right out because even the lowliest worker knew the situation was dire and the alternative was just watching it all burn out of pure spite. It might be helpful if things didn't have to degenerate quite so far before some of the more idiotic work rules that define union labor worldwide can be up for negotiation.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 14 2016, @12:05AM
So, there are cases in which labour unions don't have violence at their heart, right?
Context: your initial position was
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday April 14 2016, @12:41AM
Your examples are more like proofs of the old Klingon proverb that "only a fool fights in a burning house." Cases so pathological that they are extreme outliers, and in the steel case almost certainly caused by past union action. Unions use violence and threats of violence to induce corporations, especially those no longer run by the founder, to buy peace with terms sure to bring about eventual ruin of the shareholders but certain and instant destruction is another matter since the management won't have time to move elsewhere, cash out or even deploy their golden parachutes.
That said we should praise these examples because all unions aren't even bright enough to have an instinct for self preservation. Hostess Bakeries here in the U.S. is a fairly recent example. The stupid bastards hung tough.... so Hostess went kaput; they closed all operations and the trademarks, etc. were sold off in bankruptcy to someone else who now sells basically the same products but they are made in different, and mostly non-union, locations.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday April 14 2016, @01:48AM
Instead of blaming them, maybe you should look at the larger picture of your crazy culture.
The way you are seen from abroad: you Americans, as a society, have a streak of fundamentalist (probably inherited from your intransigent protestants forefathers) - so if you pick a principle, you tend to stick with it. Come hell or high water, you won't admit that a principle is just a model of reality, incomplete and reductionist by its very nature.
To make the matter worse, you ran with them principles over generations, until your children aren't able to mentally conceive some other approaches may be available and/or more appropriate (at least for the historical or socio-economic context) - they simply don't have any previous life experience to relate to.
Why wonder the world understands you less and less as the time passes?
On top of it, it just happens that you picked "competition" as such a principle; "survival of the fittest" can be expressed as "what happens with the losers doesn't matter; so, don't be a loser. Anybody is a potential competitor. Remember! Just don't be a loser. Play nasty if you have to, but don't be a loser (if you can't win, faking it may be enough)".
As a result, you got into a highly polarized society and prone to be polarized by any newly encountered issue (like a long time economic downturn).
"A pinch of cooperation, help me to help you? Hey, are you are commie or something?"
Any wonder things like Hostess Bakeries happened and are bound to happen in the future?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 13 2016, @02:34AM
> These days it is mostly government workers themselves who are unionized
Indeed. Private sector union membership has dropped drastically over the last 40 years. And look how great that's worked out for the country.
Oh, that's right. You don't care about results, only ideology. Carry on!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14 2016, @04:02PM
Reality check:
I'm privately employed in the USA.
I want nothing to do with unions.
Every time I've dealt with them, they've been ineffectual, corrupt, or actually shamelessly run by the mob.
They create toxic environments in which serving time counts for more than being good at what you do.
There you are: circumstances and results. No ideology needed.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Tuesday April 12 2016, @09:27PM
It is the dead hand of government (and unions which are their creature) which inhibit the law of supply and demand.
Don't blame me; I voted to not have a government.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Tuesday April 12 2016, @09:26PM
Because the wealthy have the "free market" rigged all in their favour
The solution to that is not to further rig the market. For one thing, the wealthy will just exploit the new rigging. Hence wealthy labor union leaders.
How can anyone own a home or bring up a family if unemployment is a phone call away?
By being ready to get another job if necessary. I spent all last year with unemployment just a phone call away, and I had 7 children. Now up to 8. They have to eat, so I have to keep doing something that people are willing to pay for, aka producing value.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2016, @09:48PM
I'd Love to Change the World - Ten Years After [metrolyrics.com]
Released 1971 [wikipedia.org]
From FDR until after Ike left office, the marginal tax rate on the billionaire class was over 90 percent.
...then came Neoliberalism.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 13 2016, @02:03PM
From FDR until after Ike left office, the marginal tax rate on the billionaire class was over 90 percent.
Nobody paid that rate due to the various tax loopholes like setting up trusts. In fact the effective tax rate [baldingsworld.com] of the wealthiest 1% has remained close to constant for the past 50 years despite a reduction of the highest tax bracket from 70+% to today's 35%.
The data itself tells an entirely different story from the idealized 91% tax rate. According to Internal Revenue Service data, presented below on a graph, from 1966 to 1970 the effective tax rate of an average tax payer in the top 1% was 30.85%. Throughout the time period in question, the effective tax rate of the average top 1% never exceeded 35%.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday April 13 2016, @03:25PM
That song is a perfect personality test. Especially that line you quoted. Have used it many times myself.
So then what?
The less rational say, "What do you mean by that, then everything is fixed, the poor are fed and the evil rich are gone."
The rational say, "If the poor were only eating by taking from the rich, now that there are no more rich, don't they DIE next?"
The songwriter understood the problem, which is why it was asked as a question. The song's meaning is the uncertainty about HOW to change the world, about the realization that good intentions weren't enough. You changed the punctuation to a period, quite intentionally since you link to the correct version, were you assuming nobody would actually click through?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2016, @08:03PM
The worker-owners at the Mondragon worker-owned cooperative would look at this situation and barf.
If that bunch (in the Basque Country of Spain) can't fill its management needs from within the ranks of its existing worker-owners, it hires some paper-shufflers.
In the workplaces of that proto-Socialist operation, the wage differential between the most expensive office workers and the production workers will shock you.
That is less than 10:1. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [wikipedia.org]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by GungnirSniper on Tuesday April 12 2016, @08:21PM
That's great if your company is not owned by someone else who invested it to make a profit. Too often in America unions are only out for themselves, as opposed to European unions that are more symbiotic to their companies. Often unions here make demands regardless of the practical impact those demands have, even if Verizon is healthy if it gives in too much, or too often it will end up like the auto industry.
If these Verizon unions want to have a greater say, they should buy stock and elect board members. In the long run that would be a better strategy, but to the best of my knowledge unions here don't even bother.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2016, @09:03PM
So, you DID get -some- of what I was saying.
these Verizon unions [...] should buy stock and elect board members
...because, apparently, it's so easy to override the massive power of billionaire majority-stockholders (derived through their early entry and multi-generational wealth).
BTW, ever try that buy-stock-to-take-over-the-world thing yourself?
Better idea:
The individual workers should form their own company and make that a worker cooperative where ONLY WORKERS have a voice and any worker's voice is equal to any other worker's voice.
You can immediately do away with the ridiculously expensive "professional" board of directors and monstrously overpaid C-level executives (who get golden parachutes--even when they fail spectacularly).
Of course, with the bought-and-paid-for gov't we have giving preferential treatment to multinational megacorporations, and not doing much to rein in the anti-competitive activity of those, starting a new operation to compete is a truly Sisyphian undertaking.
In short, the current system of poorly-regulated Capitalism sucks.
Traditional labor unions are still the best thing that Joe Average has.
...and the things I see at the World Socialist Web Site regarding the management-|ownership-friendliness of many top union officials lately doesn't leave me too jazzed about the labor union paradigm.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday April 13 2016, @03:32AM
It will take compound investing, or buying shares and using the profits (dividends) [verizon.com] to buy more shares grow their influence, but it can be done. If each of those 39,000 Verizon employees bought two shares of stock ($52 each) [yahoo.com] they would own nearly 2% of the company. (I'm not counting transaction costs in the math.) With each quarterly dividend, after capitol gains taxes, would gain them about 670 more shares, which would earn more interest to buy more shares, etc.
How much are they going to lose going on strike?
Verizon's stock is 65% institutionally owned, maybe by your 401k or a State-run retirement plan. Addressing institutional disregard for overpaid boards and executives is a problem, but one that united employee-stockholders could address once they have enough ownership for their own board member. So if you'd stop complaining about the system and try to work within it, you might find it can bend to your desires.
The WSWS site is openly Marxist, and as such it is ideologically opposed to suggestions like mine that would work within the capitalist system they wish to degrade and destroy.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 13 2016, @07:27AM
those 39,000 Verizon employees [...] would own nearly 2% of the company
...and they would get pounded into dust by the folks who own 50.1 percent of the stock, have no intention if selling any of their stock, and who vote as a block.
if you'd stop complaining about the system and try to work within it, you might find it can bend to your desires
...just as soon as "you" can afford to buy up 50.1 percent of the stock.
...or "you" learn mind control and use that on those people whose families always seem to have money though none of them has done any labor in generations.
The WSWS site is
...one of the few places that still covers labor issues and does NOT put on their blinders|blinkers BEFORE they start.
Yes, they're very unforgiving when it comes to abuse by employers--unlike Lamestream Media who considers abuse of workers to be a given.
WSWS also has a particular dislike for labor union executives whose first, last, and always position is concessions (AKA the Obama style of negotiation) and who rarely seem to be representing the best interest of the workers.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14 2016, @07:03PM
Uh, no.
Major stockholders can't just screw minor stockholders. That's the sort of thing that gets the SEC involved. And makes big, important, rich people go to jail. (Hi, Martha!) And once the union has enough shares, they get a lot of clout even if they aren't the majority stockholders.
I think I see the problem: you actually don't understand how the system works. Free tip: if you learned about it, you could make more cogent criticisms.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 15 2016, @07:31AM
It's a simple concept: MAJORITY RULES.
...and, as stated, the billionaires, who, in aggregate, own over 50 percent DO vote as a block.
Stop trying to make something that is simple into something complicated.
...and stop pretending that it is easy to start at zero and get enough of a share of a megacorporation to make any difference.
Minority stockholders are just along for the ride.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Peristaltic on Tuesday April 12 2016, @08:24PM
Supply and demand regulate wages, or should
Yeah, about "supply and demand" regulating wages... Ask the tech employees of Apple, Google, Intel, Adobe, Lucasfilm, Pixar, Intuit and Ebay about that. A couple of years back those companies had to write checks to settle employee class actions regarding that very issue. "No-poaching" keeps wages in line, what a great idea!
If they hadn't been caught, I'm sure that over time these companies would have come to their senses and realized that their actions were slightly outside the ideals of wage "supply and demand" that you mention.
Supply and demand, my ass.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday April 12 2016, @08:36PM
All but the most ardent Libertarian believes protection vs force and fraud, i.e, law enforcement, is a legitimate government function.
But lets reject your premise to see where it goes. So you assert that it should be a crime for employers to act in a collective way to lower wages... but the government should, at gunpoint, force all employees to collective bargain. Am I the only one seeing a logic problem?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2016, @08:55PM
No, you are not the only one who sees a logic problem. I see a logic problem called jmorris. This logic problem cannot see the difference in power that a billion dollar company like Apple and an individual employee.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 13 2016, @06:01AM
Not sarcasm: I'm having a hard time following you. I cannot tell whether or not you're adding a bit of trolling to your response just for fun or some other unfathomable reason.
I believe the GP is saying little more than a number of large companies colluded to circumvent free market regulation of supply and demand regarding wages. This would imply that supply and demand doesn't play as much a role in this context (wage regulation) as you assert.
I understand your first statement, but while fully realizing what I'm about to unleash from you, it reads as if you wrote it using calligraphy under the glow of an oil lamp. What an arcane string of words just to make a simple point. I understand that you're an intellectual, but... damn.
The next, "...lets reject your premise...": You would be talking about the GP's assertion that supply / demand - based wage regulation has been circumvented? To what other premise might you be referring? What premise did you see that I missed?
Then: "...but the government should, at gunpoint, force all employees to collective bargain." How does this concept relate to the GP's premise?
I have become interested in what you have to say, but just what in the hell is it that you are trying to say? Dumb it down for an idiot like me.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2016, @08:26PM
Who cares how much money Verizon makes? What does that have to do with employee compensation?
The people employed and serviced by Verizon care. What this has to do with employee compensation is that Verison wants to benefit from our good economy, use our roads, sell to our largely publicly educated populace, and reap the rewards of doing business in a healthy country, but they want to have the work done in less healthy countries by people with poorer economic means and less choice. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
Too much internationalism is toxic to a nation's people, Verizon's practices are becoming overly exploitative, and need to be put in check. Most people can't uproot themselves anywhere they please, but international businesses can. So, if corporations want to be considered as having some of the rights of people, they should have to act more like people do. And that means limiting their ability to exploit humans by being an amorphous inhuman hive that can shift value about the world freely and thus feast on human life force like some sort of alien abomination.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday April 12 2016, @07:56PM
Here's mine [prospect.org.uk]. Been a member for 20 years.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday April 12 2016, @08:03PM
I live in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in Brooklyn, NY, and they don't even bring FIOS here. So it's a Time-Warner monopoly. Google Fiber would be a boon, but Verizon and TWC keep them boxed out through their web of kickbacks and corruption.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday April 13 2016, @03:39AM
Interesting timing that the Verizon FiOS expansion in Boston [wbur.org] was announced today.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 13 2016, @04:38PM
So they'll start rolling it out in 5 years and maybe complete it in 10.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Wednesday April 13 2016, @11:52PM
Under the threat of a gun? :P
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Wednesday April 13 2016, @11:56PM
What prevents some neighbors to just buy a fiber link themselves, given that the supply of money is high?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2016, @09:03PM
I really don't want to be caught saying anything that could be seen as defending Verizon, but I do want to comment on something that I see in many articles that flame companies for not paying their workers more, which is the implicit idea that employees aren't paid well because "Look, the CEO got $18 million last year." $18 million divided evenly among 39,000 employees would be $462 per employee per year. In other words, if you paid the CEO nothing that would free up enough cash to give the 39,000 employees maybe a 0.5% to 1% raise. I'm not expressing any opinion on whether or not he is over paid, I'm just saying that at a company with that many employees the CEO's pay is a drop in the bucket compared to the full payroll.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Tuesday April 12 2016, @09:20PM
$462 would go a long way with some of the lower wage workers. It may not seem like a lot to you, but to some of them I think it would be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 12 2016, @10:48PM
The Mondragon worker-owned cooperative doesn't have conventional executives nor a conventional board of directors.
(A Socialist will tell you that the people most affected by decisions should be the ones making those decisions.)
What Mondragon has is WORKERS making the decisions democratically.
Y'know, the people intimately involved in PRODUCING the company's good|services.
If those folks need more information|guidance (e.g. for expansion), they bring on new WORKERS with the requisite skills|knowledge or -contract- with someone to provide that.
C-level executives (and boards of directors hired from outside the company--at ridiculous salaries) are NOT a necessity.
I'm particularly offended when that class of individuals makes decisions that anyone on the production floor knows is monumentally stupid--yet the badly-performing suit gets a bonus|promotion|golden parachute.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 13 2016, @05:26AM
So what time will you be showing up to work tomorrow, Gewg? Or will you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 13 2016, @01:45AM
Elect a Democratic President and Congress. They're the party concerned about income inequality, and with proposals to restore the top income tax brackets and capital gains taxes to the schedule in the 1990s, when Bill Clinton was President.
Obama can't get it done with Republicans controlling both houses of Congress.
I'm one who thinks that actually makes a big difference on how CEOs and other corporate executives act. As an example, look at REI, the outdoor equipment vendor, which is a co-op. Their CEO makes less than $1 million/yr. They gave their employees not just Thanksgiving, but the day after that (Black Friday) because they felt it was important for their employees to have holiday time with their families.
Now imagine a CEO making $10 million with stock incentives worth another $15 million facing that decision, with the board breathing down his neck to make the stock go up. Not only will he not give his retail employees more time off, he's probably working on ways to automate or offshore their jobs out of existence.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 13 2016, @05:26AM
Well, the soap, ballot, and jury boxes have all been rendered moot or worse. That leaves just one. There is something to that "first against the wall" expression. The elite seem to want a revolution; well, they keep this shit up and they'll get it, and much good may all their money and power do them in the next world.
Incidentally, JMorris, we won't shoot you. No, *you* get the brazen bull, because that is a fair description of everything you've posted in this thread. And if you think *that's* hot and painful wait till you get where you're going.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...