4 ms·

"The unions also procured a letter from 14 mayors that criticized the company for not making its fiber optic network available to enough of their residents, and

"The unions also procured a letter from 14 mayors that criticized the company for not making its fiber optic network available to enough of their residents, and from 20 United States senators urging Verizon to act as a “responsible corporate citizen” and negotiate fairly with its workers." Interesting; so the union's going on strike not only to maintain their pension levels, but also to help underserved communities. Noble of them. But it would be nobler still if they offered concessions of pay and benefit cuts in exchange for Verizon making its fiber available to more neighborhoods. Obviously it's just a ploy to get the voters on their side, but they're omitting the detail that the voters are going to end up paying higher for their phone and data service as a result.

USANEEDSHELP 11y ago
The union is doing what it is supposed to do. Fight for the workers it represents. The ability to negotiate with Verizon is important and critical to ensure that each worker gets a fair wage, regardless of the message. These are hardworking men and woman who need a fair wage and benefits. I know several folks who work for Verizon & support them and hope they get what they need to make it in this world. Verizon has had years to install fiber in all of its markets. Instead, they took the money & gave it to shareholders & management. Incarnations of Verizon (MA-BELL) have had protections from the government for many many years. They have neglected their infrastructure for years, but their rates keep going up and up! There's no ploy. Verizon customers always pay because the prices keep rising regardless of what the union is doing. What the USA really needs is to shutdown these for profit companies that provide our voice/IP infrastructure. We need have a "new-deal" type of deployment, where every state in the country should have fiber on every pole. This can be done, only if we remove the for-profit mindset. Once this is done, anybody can sell services on those fiber lines (streaming movies, cloud base storage etc... VOIP). Enough with the bullshit, the current ISP/Voice/Video in the USA is shit and we need to remove the stranglehold these companies have in our states and government (COMCAST, VERIZON, AT&T, Time Warner etc...). Their is not competition in the USA and it's bullshit. Peace. Peace.
Retric 11y ago
You can't pass on 100% of worker wage increase to customers without losing net revenue. So, a lot of this money comes from management and stock owners. PS: It's a question of price / demand curves. Raising prices costs customers which reduces profits.
- blisterpeanuts 11y ago
  But by the same logic, you can't pass on 100% of profit to the workers without losing spending flexibility and the ability to reinvest in the company's infrastructure and future prosperity. No one complains that Google Fiber doesn't serve every neighborhood in the cities where it is established. Google negotiated that deal with the cities, and if a city refuses to let them target only specific, profitable neighborhoods, they simply take that city off the list. In my opinion, this whole situation is emblematic of why American digital infrastructure is slow and behind the times, because of antiquated and senseless rules. I don't think Verizon is some kind of nice company; they're reprehensible at times and frankly I feel sorry for the people working there and I kind of understand their anger. But, business is business.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    A failure to serve poor neighborhoods actually is a criticism people have of Google Fiber (search for "google fiber digital divide" for examples), and it's something they attempt to combat by providing free service to libraries, community centers, and low-income housing in some places. I do think that trying to shame or regulate companies into serving unprofitable areas is the wrong way to go about it. If it's that important, then subsidize service in those areas so it's actually profitable. But Americans seem to hate obvious subsidies, and prefer to make them weird and convoluted instead.
    - Retric 11y ago
      The problem is it is generally profitable, just less profitable. Worse we are subsidizing them, but if they finish the subsides end and none of the subsides where directly tied to actually deploying new fiber to every home. PS: You get a lot of very different numbers out there. But remember at 10 acres per house you get 64 houses per square mile and people tend to clump near roads and in towns. http://blog.performantnetworks.com/2012/11/how-much-does-rural-fiber-really-cost.html http://blog.performantnetworks.com/2012/11/how-much-does-rur... Sure, there are a few places where it's still unprofitable, but we can debate the last 1/2th of a percent of homes when you get close to 99%.
logfromblammo 11y ago
Don't forget that in order to make the fiber optic network available to more residents, more work has to be done on the ground and up the poles, and some of that work will be done by unionized workers. Nobility has little to do with it. The complaint is that the company is refusing to pay for work that might be done by union-represented employees. The fact that the work would also benefit the paying customers is just poking the other thumb in the other eye, too. When the interests of both your customers and your employees are aligned behind something, I would think that you might have an interest in doing it, whatever it may be.

USANEEDSHELP 11y ago

The union is doing what it is supposed to do. Fight for the workers it represents. The ability to negotiate with Verizon is important and critical to ensure that each worker gets a fair wage, regardless of the message. These are hardworking men and woman who need a fair wage and benefits. I know several folks who work for Verizon & support them and hope they get what they need to make it in this world. Verizon has had years to install fiber in all of its markets. Instead, they took the money & gave it to shareholders & management. Incarnations of Verizon (MA-BELL) have had protections from the government for many many years. They have neglected their infrastructure for years, but their rates keep going up and up! There's no ploy. Verizon customers always pay because the prices keep rising regardless of what the union is doing. What the USA really needs is to shutdown these for profit companies that provide our voice/IP infrastructure. We need have a "new-deal" type of deployment, where every state in the country should have fiber on every pole. This can be done, only if we remove the for-profit mindset. Once this is done, anybody can sell services on those fiber lines (streaming movies, cloud base storage etc... VOIP). Enough with the bullshit, the current ISP/Voice/Video in the USA is shit and we need to remove the stranglehold these companies have in our states and government (COMCAST, VERIZON, AT&T, Time Warner etc...). Their is not competition in the USA and it's bullshit. Peace. Peace.

Retric 11y ago

You can't pass on 100% of worker wage increase to customers without losing net revenue. So, a lot of this money comes from management and stock owners. PS: It's a question of price / demand curves. Raising prices costs customers which reduces profits.

blisterpeanuts 11y ago
But by the same logic, you can't pass on 100% of profit to the workers without losing spending flexibility and the ability to reinvest in the company's infrastructure and future prosperity. No one complains that Google Fiber doesn't serve every neighborhood in the cities where it is established. Google negotiated that deal with the cities, and if a city refuses to let them target only specific, profitable neighborhoods, they simply take that city off the list. In my opinion, this whole situation is emblematic of why American digital infrastructure is slow and behind the times, because of antiquated and senseless rules. I don't think Verizon is some kind of nice company; they're reprehensible at times and frankly I feel sorry for the people working there and I kind of understand their anger. But, business is business.
- mikeash 11y ago
  A failure to serve poor neighborhoods actually is a criticism people have of Google Fiber (search for "google fiber digital divide" for examples), and it's something they attempt to combat by providing free service to libraries, community centers, and low-income housing in some places. I do think that trying to shame or regulate companies into serving unprofitable areas is the wrong way to go about it. If it's that important, then subsidize service in those areas so it's actually profitable. But Americans seem to hate obvious subsidies, and prefer to make them weird and convoluted instead.
  - Retric 11y ago
    The problem is it is generally profitable, just less profitable. Worse we are subsidizing them, but if they finish the subsides end and none of the subsides where directly tied to actually deploying new fiber to every home. PS: You get a lot of very different numbers out there. But remember at 10 acres per house you get 64 houses per square mile and people tend to clump near roads and in towns. http://blog.performantnetworks.com/2012/11/how-much-does-rural-fiber-really-cost.html http://blog.performantnetworks.com/2012/11/how-much-does-rur... Sure, there are a few places where it's still unprofitable, but we can debate the last 1/2th of a percent of homes when you get close to 99%.

logfromblammo 11y ago

Don't forget that in order to make the fiber optic network available to more residents, more work has to be done on the ground and up the poles, and some of that work will be done by unionized workers. Nobility has little to do with it. The complaint is that the company is refusing to pay for work that might be done by union-represented employees. The fact that the work would also benefit the paying customers is just poking the other thumb in the other eye, too. When the interests of both your customers and your employees are aligned behind something, I would think that you might have an interest in doing it, whatever it may be.