Comments on: CWA Ratifies New AT&T Mobility Contract

By: Terry Lee Webb

Terry Lee Webb — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:19:52 +0000

My sister has worked for Bell/AT and T for most of her working life. Last strike, again, health benefits the main sticking issue, it took five mgmt. men to do the job of this one woman. She is a hard working, loyal employee and with such a huge profit, 12 billion, and being listed number 8 on Forbe’s list of best profiting companies, I believe that it is AT and T who is greedy and not the workers.

By: randallstephenson

randallstephenson — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 01:48:55 +0000

chard, spoken like a true republican: steal from the poor to give to the rich! if we’re so lazy & replaceable, then simply just get rid of us! oh wait, they can’t, they’ll all fail w/o us. we’re not trying to rob the company, remember if the company is not successful then we as a union are not successful! a company that made huge profit even in a bad economy must reward it employees. you see it is a union that can prevent/ reduce things like corporate greed: ceo’s that say to themselves, “oh look, my bonus was only 5 million $ this year, last year it was 7 million $, we need to lay off 5,000 employees so i can make up the difference”. but i’m sure you would support something like that. w/o unions, there will be no middle class. just the rich & the poor!

By: Jay D.

Jay D. — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 16:43:42 +0000

Still,… can we get some current info. After all that….?

By: werwrqgt

werwrqgt — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 18:16:27 +0000

How hard it is to admit a mistake.

By: Ed Oswald

Ed Oswald — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:16:54 +0000

Intentionally deceptive? Please, leave the tinfoil hat somwhere else.

By: werwrqgt

werwrqgt — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 14:44:33 +0000

“I’ve noticed a lot of folks visiting us to discuss the AT&T/CWA contract negotiations. As a service to our readers, I wanted to give you all an update on where things stand. A strike has been averted, as the CWA announced Friday it has ratified a new contract.”

A STRIKE has been averted. Of course, it’s not THE strike “a lot of folks visiting” you want to discuss. But you didn’t SAY that.

I change my earlier diagnosis: you weren’t confused, you were for reasons best known to you, being intentionally deceptive. A more honest way to have put it would have been something like this:

“While negotiations between the CWA and AT&T over contracts covering 120,000 wireline employees continue with an April 4, deadline, an agreement reached earlier between the CWA and AT&T covering Mobility employees was ratified yesterday.”

By: werwrqgt

werwrqgt — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 14:36:18 +0000

Chard – I couldn’t have said it better myself – and didn’t.

By: Chard

Chard — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 12:34:25 +0000

The article is technically correct but is misleading in the extreme:

“Friday, April 3, 2009

I wanted to give you all an update on where things stand. A strike has been averted, as the CWA announced Friday it has ratified a new contract.”

This was a foregone conclusion for the Mobility Contract. This isn’t “an update on where things stand” because the prominent situation is the CWA/AT&T bargaining that’s going on for the landline divisions. Although there is no Mobility strike, it is not breaking news. This article is like saying “The War is Over” and meaning WWII instead of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.

By: Garvin

Garvin — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 11:30:45 +0000

The MOBILITY CONTRACT was RATIFIED ON APRIL 3RD. This was following the TENTATIVE AGREEMENT reached on MARCH 3RD (note tentative, not ratified). The Union vote was counted on April 2nd (the members get a chance to vote on a tentative agreement before is is ratified). The author is correct, having spelled it out perhaps a bit too simplistically for some of you, but correct. Please, re-read the article and pay close attention to the words Mobility, tentative, and ratified.

By: werwrqgt

werwrqgt — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 11:20:19 +0000

I don’t think I was the one who was confused.

Why did YOU post YESTERDAY about a ratification that happened a month ago as if it were current news while ongoing negotiations were and still are going on with another section of the company and union – as you now report correctly?

Geez, admit you made a mistake. Your readers were not confused. You were.