Tuesday, August 16th, 2011
12

Why Does Verizon Hate America?

Verizon, who has recently been quite happy to secretly turn over millions of loyal Americans' phone records to the government (and then lie about doing so!), now has a much more difficult choice to make about what's right. Do they cater to anti-union bias and Wall Street profit-grabbing? Or do they engage just a little in trying to make America better by not helping to destroy the middle class?

With global operating revenues last year of $106 billion (and only $31 billion in real costs), the company doesn't feel a need to really engage with its 45,000 striking workers. Last year, Verizon laid off lots of staff—2500 directly, and nearly 12,000 more volunteered for "incentives" to leave, and they spent a good deal of money in the short term to reduce employee costs. Now, of course, here comes more.

The strike (which doesn't affect Verizon Wireless, which is a non-union operation), now in its second week, is over old-fashioned cost-cutting based on old reasoning, much like their entire debt-carrying way of running the business: basically Verizon wants to get a stock bounce for making working people pay more of their health care, and getting fewer sick days, and not having job security. So ridiculous—and so politically ill-timed.

But you can watch the Boston Globe prattle on their editorial page about how Verizon workers should suck it up and pay part of their health care costs, just like everyone else. After all, when the Globe's parent company wanted to cut costs, they decided which printing plant to shutter based on the proximity and density of union workers to the plants. It was a stealth union bust—so the Globe and the New York Times Company, with a long recent history of pay cuts, layoffs and buyouts, really has no moral authority to opine on these matters.

12 Comments / Post A Comment

Joey Camire (#6,325)

What? Do you want Ivan to take a pay cut in this economy? He is barely getting by on 18MM a year, and he has a company to think about.

jfruh (#713)

Last night my stepbrother, who is a supervisor at a GM plant and generally has nothing good to say about his unionized workforce, was talking about how the strikers have been misrepresented in the media and that Verizon is being unreasonable. I was pretty flabbergasted.

Also, my back always goes up when people say "You need to contribute something to your healthcare." It is not totally obvious that, when Verizon or whoever sits down and figures out your "total compensation", the amount they pay for health care goes into that number, even if it doesn't show up on your paycheck? Personally, I am all in favor making all those payments transparent on your check, but don't pretend your employer is paying your healthcare out of the goodness of their hearts; it's part of their costs of having employees, and if they weren't doing it they'd have more money in the compensation pot.

Zaba (#24,057)

Thats because its not the UAW striking, and those are not his employees.

deepomega (#1,720)

@jfruh This is what drives up and down the wall. "Pay more of your healthcare" actually means "get a pay cut." At the end of the day all that matters is total compensation, and the only wrench thrown in is the tax benefits the employers get. (At my old job, we had our healthcare contribution double out of the blue, and everyone knew it was just a backdoor pay cut.)

Zaba (#24,057)

I hate to tell you this my friend. Unions only exist to maintain a wage rate for certain workers which would not exist in a free market. When companies (Verizon) pay more for health care, less total workers will be hired. Moreover, the marginal productivity of union workers is (adversely) effected. It must never be forgotten that a philosophy of violence replaces the conciliatory teachings of democracy. Whats not to hate about unions in the US – the rest of the world dosnt mind working without privilege (as man always has).

whizz_dumb (#10,650)

@Zaba Nope. Watch your absolutes dude because collective bargaining units negotiate more than just wages. Also those workers *who* certainly would exist in a free market would be working 7 days a week under more dangerous conditions if it weren't for unions, all slave-wages aside.

@Zaba BARGH. I've gone through four possible replies to this and instead of actually replying, I will instead borrow from The Hairpin and just say this is totally anti-phaliegong.

boyofdestiny (#1,243)

@Zaba I'm pretty sure some of them mind.

whizz_dumb (#10,650)

@boyofdestiny But it must never be forgotten that a philosophy of big business replaces the humanitarian teachings of not being a greedy dick.

ComradePsmith (#4,477)

@Zaba There were very few slave rebellions in the US, but that doesn't mean that people liked being slaves, or that slavery was the right thing to do.

max bread (#5,970)

@Zaba "fewer total workers"; "what's"; "doesn't"

meechybee (#23,231)

Here's my conundrum. (I know, it's all about "me, me, me".)

I've agreed to move my business within my building. Without Verizon, I can't move out or into the new space, I'm stuck. Luckily for me, the landlord is being patient (so far). But for everyone facing a move right now, it's hell. You can't get old service shut off or get on a waiting list for new service (the call centers hang up on you). If your contracted to move by a set date, you risk defaulting on your old lease and losing your deposits. Any way you slice it, it's hurting small businesses more than it's hurting Verizon corporate.

Post a Comment