AT&T plans to fire 7,000 people

[Petrolheadia]

i think you are having problems understanding what that other post said, maybe take a reread. Please provide a source that says there has been no severance package offered. i dont think you can provide such a source, now to be fair, if you asked me what wonderful package is being provided i probably could not source one as they just announced the layoff the package most likely has not been decided as of yet.

earlier i provided you with a source that said ATT had hired 27,000 over the past two years which is a net game of 20,000 jobs. i would say that is a positive usage of the tax break. Although again to be honest i expect ATT to hire as business conditions dictate, and just take advantage of tax policy in the specifics of that hiring. Much like amazon is bringing 25,000 jobs plus some serious development in exchange for 1.3 billion in tax breaks over ten years to NYC. Amazon was looking for an east coast location. and did use tax advantages to decide where.

Lets meet in the middle and say that the possibility severance package is still a possibility.

Neither confirmed nor denied.

7,000 people firing is a negative use of the break.

And that 27,000 was over two years, this 7,000 is a purge.

Once again, we do not know how many would have been fired otherwise, and this is an one-time even that could likely be overshadowed by further growth.

[Telconi]

i think you are having problems understanding what that other post said, maybe take a reread. Please provide a source that says there has been no severance package offered. i dont think you can provide such a source, now to be fair, if you asked me what wonderful package is being provided i probably could not source one as they just announced the layoff the package most likely has not been decided as of yet.

earlier i provided you with a source that said ATT had hired 27,000 over the past two years which is a net game of 20,000 jobs. i would say that is a positive usage of the tax break. Although again to be honest i expect ATT to hire as business conditions dictate, and just take advantage of tax policy in the specifics of that hiring. Much like amazon is bringing 25,000 jobs plus some serious development in exchange for 1.3 billion in tax breaks over ten years to NYC. Amazon was looking for an east coast location. and did use tax advantages to decide where.

Lets meet in the middle and say that the possibility severance package is still a possibility.

Neither confirmed nor denied.

7,000 people firing is a negative use of the break.

And that 27,000 was over two years, this 7,000 is a purge.

Any who separate from the company will receive severances.

There is no guarantee that 7,000 will be laid off.

The company has hired more people than it had laid off. Thus, it is a net job creator since the tax break.

[Pope Joan]

who will buy the products of corporate America once they fire everybody?

So much for the consumer economy; buh bye

[Petrolheadia]

who will buy the products of corporate America once they fire everybody?

So much for the consumer economy; buh bye

People are fired because nobody was buying what they were making, so they were a net loss.

[Arlenton]

Sause

When the GOP passed tax reform in 2017, the party justified its corporate tax cuts with claims that the reductions would boost US employment, wages, and the overall economy. The FCC similarly justified its repeal of net neutrality by arguing that the onerous regulation of wireless and wireline service was hampering innovation, imposing ruinous costs, and generally harming the telcos, ISPs, and cellular service providers in the United States.

Thus far, the corporations Ajit Pai and the Republican Party bent over backward to help haven’t exactly been returning the favor. GM plans to close plants and fire 14,000 people. Verizon has no plan to boost 5G investment, despite Pai’s claim that repealing net neutrality would lead to additional corporate network spending. Now AT&T is reportedly preparing to fire 7,000 people, despite having previously promised that tax breaks and freedom from burdensome regulation would actually create jobs.

What AT&T Said Then
On May 4, 2017, AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson gave an interview to CNBC declaring the importance of cutting taxes. “Lower taxes drives more investment, drives more hiring, drives greater wages,” Stephenson said on CNBC’s Squawk Box. “All of this fits together.”

Other choice quotes include: “If you can have a tax reduction of 35 percent down to, you pick your number, 25 or 20 percent — to think that wouldn’t cause additional investment is nonsensical. I know exactly what AT&T would do: We would invest more.”

Here’s a really good one:

“Every billion dollars in additional investment we make is 7,000 additional jobs we have to put on to put that capital into the ground or on cell towers and so forth,” Stephenson said. “And these are 7,000 jobs wearing hard hats, these are high-paying jobs with good benefits. The correlation is very, very tight. If we have to make that kind of hiring and do that kind of hiring, that drives productivity, which drives what? Wage growth.” (Emphasis added).

AT&T reported a $19B tax windfall in January of 2018, along with an additional $3B in cash that it claimed it would spend on network investments throughout 2018. Capital expenditures in 2017 totaled $21.6B. At the beginning of 2018, AT&T forecast capital expenditures of $25B.

What AT&T Says Now
We don’t know how much AT&T spent on capital expenditures for the entire year, but in Q3 2018 the company stated its estimated capex for FY2018 would be ~$22B. That’s on par with what it spent in 2017, with no increase associated with either the GOP tax bill or the $20B windfall.

In the memo (leaked to Motherboard and confirmed by AT&T), AT&T tries to dodge its own previous statements, claiming that its CEO had previously said that $1B in investment creates 7,000 jobs “across the broader economy.” But that’s not what Stephenson said.

In 2017, Stephenson claimed that the Trump tax cuts would result in AT&T boosting its investment levels. He knew exactly what AT&T would do: It would invest. That investment would create jobs, not “across the broader economy,” but for AT&T workers. Hard hat jobs, with great benefits and good pay. The kind of jobs Americans want. The kind of jobs a CEO would dangle in front of Americans to make them think supporting a giant tax cut and regulatory reduction for corporations was a good idea. The kind of jobs you talk about when you use a pronoun like “we,” which doesn’t mean “Other companies besides AT&T.”

AT&T has earned record profits for itself by shuttering call centers and offshoring workers, with an estimated 16,500 jobs lost since 2011. The Communication Workers of America estimate AT&T eliminated 10,800 positions in the last year alone.

The bonuses AT&T claimed were paid out as a result of the Trump tax cuts were actually negotiated beforehand with its unions and had absolutely nothing to do with the GOP tax bill. Despite the promise that net neutrality repeal and the tax cut would boost wireless investment, overall wireless capital expenditures are believed to have fallen in 2018. And this isn’t unique to AT&T — Verizon also claimed plans to boost its own investment levels before deciding not to.

Instead of creating 7,000 jobs with every additional $1B in network investment, AT&T will shed 7,000 jobs to further enrich its stockholders and pay for stock buybacks.

Personal Note
Sometimes, in a story like this one, someone will pop in and accuse me of political bias. While I won’t pretend to lack political opinions, the point here isn’t political. It’s ethical.

Put simply, I’m tired of being lied to. The tax cuts and net neutrality repeal were advertised, justified, and declared necessary because of the necessary and critical impact they would have on overall investment and infrastructure. None of it happened. No one is punished for it. The chairman of the FCC has produced no data at any point that actually justified his claim that net neutrality was a threat to broadband investment or had resulted in a reduction of it. (At least, none that stood up to factual analysis).

We live in a country where powerful heads of major multi-national companies with resources and wealth that rival that of some countries are allowed to blithely lie about their own intentions and the impact of laws that blatantly favor their own self-interests. Our politicians, instead of serving as guardians of the public good, fall over themselves to enable this nihilistic behavior. And everyone — including, all too often, members of the press — treats this as business as usual.

So, despite leeway from Trump's FCC and leeway from tax breaks thanks to the GOP, AT&T managed to fuck over working Americans.

I said that the corporate tax breaks wouldn't work, I said that repealing NN was a bad idea, but some people still defended both decisions beacuse of the poor oppressed billionaires.

Here we are, where a billion dollar tech company fucks over working people despite all the leeway the GOP and Libertarians give them.

Fucking corporations make me sick. I can only hope that should a general strike is called in the US, AT&T and it's ilk of greddy tech corporations get there stock price eviscerated.

What say you NSG?

I say AT&T, and any other corporation, should run its own business they way it sees fit.

[Petrolheadia]

Sause




So, despite leeway from Trump's FCC and leeway from tax breaks thanks to the GOP, AT&T managed to fuck over working Americans.

I said that the corporate tax breaks wouldn't work, I said that repealing NN was a bad idea, but some people still defended both decisions beacuse of the poor oppressed billionaires.

Here we are, where a billion dollar tech company fucks over working people despite all the leeway the GOP and Libertarians give them.

Fucking corporations make me sick. I can only hope that should a general strike is called in the US, AT&T and it's ilk of greddy tech corporations get there stock price eviscerated.

What say you NSG?

I say AT&T, and any other corporation, should run its own business they way it sees fit.

Also, I love how the guy just ignores all the job creation in America.

[Telconi]

I say AT&T, and any other corporation, should run its own business they way it sees fit.

Also, I love how the guy just ignores all the job creation in America.

The very thread title is misleading...

[Vassenor]

I say AT&T, and any other corporation, should run its own business they way it sees fit.

Also, I love how the guy just ignores all the job creation in America.

So when a company says that the big tax breaks will be used by it to fund job creation, and instead it lays off huge numbers of employees, we're supposed to ignore that because other companies created jobs?

[Ethel mermania]

Also, I love how the guy just ignores all the job creation in America.

So when a company says that the big tax breaks will be used by it to fund job creation, and instead it lays off huge numbers of employees, we're supposed to ignore that because other companies created jobs?

ATT hired 27,000 folks over the past 2 years, so there is a net gain of 20,000 jobs.

[Telconi]

So when a company says that the big tax breaks will be used by it to fund job creation, and instead it lays off huge numbers of employees, we're supposed to ignore that because other companies created jobs?

ATT hired 27,000 folks over the past 2 years, so there is a net gain of 20,000 jobs.

Net change doesn't matter Ethel, this particular set of surpluses have upset people's feeling.

[Novus America]

Also, I love how the guy just ignores all the job creation in America.

So when a company says that the big tax breaks will be used by it to fund job creation, and instead it lays off huge numbers of employees, we're supposed to ignore that because other companies created jobs?

One, AT&T has created more jobs then were eliminated by technological obsolescence.
Two, essentially yes.
These tax breaks were obviously NOT do on a company by company basis, it was an across the board reduction in the corporate income tax rate to a level more in line with other countries (before the US had one of the highest in the world).

Nobody ever claimed it meant no jobs would every be made obsolete ever again.
Supporters simply claimed jobs would be created overall.
Which indisputably happened, the US has actually been creating more jobs than we have workers to fill.
Again total employment is at a record high, unemployment the lowest in 50 years, and we have 7 million more jobs than we have unemployed to fill.

You can argue that the tax and regulatory reform was not the cause.
But to claim job losses prove they did not work is silly considering the job market is the best it has been in 50 years.

[Kernen]

That is incorrect. The tax breaks were not created to prevent obsolete technologies from becoming obsolete nor prevent the layoff of all unneeded employees.

Well perhaps. But I guess they determined they no longer needed them.
They are not going to keep paying them based on speculation, especially if they do not have the needed skills.

They could have re-trained them to move them around to over departments.

I understand that 7,000 employees shuffled around is a bit much, but AT&T could have softened the blow a lot more with the leeway thay had with money.

They spent the same amount as last years Q3. They could have opened up expermantal new services or strengthen current ones with a fresh wave of employees.

AT&T could have done so much more with the new freedom they had from the tax breaks. Yet they decided to pocket the money they were saving and only fire people instead of trying something new to give there consumers the best service possible.

Businesses do not have an obligation to generate jobs.