Hundreds of AT&T Union Members Sent Home Without Pay (4 wearing protest t-shirts)

[Omaha Steve]

Source: NBC Connecticut

Wore anti-AT&T t-shirts as a protest
By DOUG GREENE

AT&T's contract with the Communications Workers of America Local 1298 expired in April, and the union's not happy about management's approach during negotiations.

So, hundreds of union members went to work wearing t-shirts saying "prisoner of AT&T".

"They gave us the option to take 'em off or go home, suspended for a day," said Mike Duffy, an installation repair technician in Danbury. "I didn't have another shirt, so we went home."

Duffy's union leaders figure more than two hundred workers were suspended, out of a thousand union workers who wore the shirts. They threaten to file a grievance with the National Labor Relations Board over arbitrary suspensions.



Read more: http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local-beat/ATT-T-shirt-Protest-57763507.html

[tomm2thumbs]

1. I guess it is better than 'AT&T wants to pull the plug on Grandma'

but they could have turned their shirts inside out as well, no? (or did they print it on the inside too hahahahah)

[DrDan]

2. gotta side with AT&T on this one . . . .

[bowens43]

7. You have got to be kidding. nt

[DrDan]

9. no - I am not

these are customer-facing people. I think the AT&T has every right to expect them to put on a "good face" to the customer.

Would you support a similar t-shirt from a cashier in a grocery store? or a salesperson in Macy's?

[gtar100]

18. *WHOLE HEARTEDLY* I would support a cashier or salesperson.

Hell yes, I would.

I'm not a TV-made human that walks into stores expecting all workers to drop their humanity in service of the company. We are not automatons (as much as some try to make others be).

[DrDan]

20. would you wear such a shirt in your place of business?

or have you in the past?

I would guess not - particularly if you are dealing with customers.

[kpominville]

34. If my employer treated me like shit... as AT&T has these people...

Then yes I definitely would wear a t-shirt in protest.

[DrDan]

36. how were they treated inappropriately?

They are working. They are receiving pay for their work. They are being asked to dress appropriately when meeting customers.

We certainly disagree about poor treatment.

[treestar]

106. There are people on DU who hate big companies as a matter of principle

they simply hate insurance companies, for example, and the people who work for them can go hang for working for such evil institutions. never mind that the employees of these big companies would have no jobs if the big company did not keep its customers. No, it is a big company, and that makes it evil, period.

As for this, the union should go by the rules. If they want to go on strike or whatever, do it, not some passive aggressive action - and why do they want to alienate the customers from the company? That could lead to layoffs. Not really thinking here.

[rd_kent]

60. If your employer treats you like shit, why do you work there?

As an employer, if one of my employees wears something disparaging my business, that person is fired. Dont see a problem here.

[Occulus]

79. Not if they have a union.

Then they can file a grievance, which goes to an arbitrator. They will make the firing decision, not you.

The single greatest asset to a union member is the revocation of arbitrary termination on the part of the employer. If they're union, in my experience, you can't just fire them. You no longer have the right to do so.

[DrDan]

88. but there is a termination process that should be followed

follow the rules - or be subject to that process. AT&T has a right to expect appropriate behavior when it comes to dealing with customers. If an employee violates that expectation, then the process kicks in.

Of course, no one would support arbitrary termination. That is not the point of the issue at hand.

[rd_kent]

98. Wearing a shirt with a derogatory message about your employer

and getting fired for it not arbitrary termination.

[Treo]

152. Do you realize how insane that is?

They will make the firing decision, not you.

It's his business, he's the one putting up the capital it should be his decision to terminate any employee who disparages his business to a customer

[mike_c]

43. I have-- my union distributed shirts that say...

..."I don't want to strike, but I will!" during contract negotiations and I wore them to work, in class, etc, as did many of my colleagues. There was no management reaction at all, or at least none that I'm aware of.

[DrDan]

66. wearing that shirt to class and meeting with AT&T customers wearing the shirt in question

are two completely different things.

And just because management did not share their conversation with you certainly does not mean the shirts were not discussed. It only means your guidance was not sought.

[Robb]

78. Yes.

The second makes management even more uncomfortable, because it forces the issues into public view.

You seem very set on defending the rights of the corporation here. :(

[DrDan]

87. just in this particular issue - which I find AT&T actions to be completely appropriate

Sorry I am not one to demonize the company as you would have hoped.

What should happen to an employee - say an employee of CNN who wears t-shirt on-camera that says "CNN sucks - Please Turn to MS-NBC for Objective Coverage".

Do you think that is appropriate? Do you think the management of CNN should let thta pass? They are in business to make money - just like AT&T. To have an employee inhibit that wrong. I am not talking about screwing any customer or viewer. I am not talking about anything illegal or immoral. Just doing what they need to do to become successful.

[alarimer]

137. There are plenty of people here who defend corporations.

I am not one of them. I HATE ALL corporations. They are evil, bar none. Capitalism sucks in so many ways and the biggest is the way in which corporations have control over our political process. They have rights as if they were individuals, which they should not have.

[mike_c]

80. well, we got a good contract, at least partly attributable to that action...

...I think. I'm not sure I agree that the circumstances are so different. We communicated our readiness to strike to our "user base," the folks we provide services to, and the ones who will be most directly affected by a strike, however you wish to define them. And I might add that it was our free speech right to do so, to express our opinion on a labor matter that affected our livelihoods and our satisfaction. Why should AT&T employees not have similar rights? Why should AT&T customers not be informed about the labor struggles their service providers are undergoing? They have the reciprocal right to not be concerned, if they choose.

Do you think that AT&T has the right to expect ignorant customers?

[DrDan]

85. of course not. And I have no problem with these union members

expressing their views while off-work.

When getting paid for representing the company, however, I think it is incumbant upon them to put their best foot forward. And that does not mean wearing disparaging t-shirts.

[Occulus]

72. One of my supervisors once said "you're all a bunch of lazy cows".

Within a week, ten people were wearing a shirt that said, "Cows may come and cows may go but the BULLSHIT REMAINS THE SAME" or some such. They were made by one of the people who was working in that section at the time.

Nobody was fired. Nobody was escorted out. Nobody was disciplined. Nobody was given a job discussion. Management didn't say jack shit about it.

Why? Because the APWU is a strong union that routinely says "no" to management.

We win. Often. Sometimes in the millions of dollars, because postal managers are so unwilling to abide by the contract they've agreed to.

[Buenaventura]

23. These are not "customer-facing people"

CWA members work behind closed doors in vault-like buildings with armed guards at the door! Visit your local AT&T fortress and find out for yourself!

[DrDan]

25. I worked for AT&T for years - and yes - there are plenty of CWA members

facing the customer. Who installs, repairs, etc.

Read the article.

"In a statement, AT&T spokesman Walt Sharp said "We do not believe dress disparaging the company is appropriate for someone representing the company." If workers wore the shirts to jobs in call centers where they don't face customers there would be no problem, he said."

Those expectations are completely appropriate.

[MrsBrady]

40. So tell me what they should do instead?

"talking it out" is apparently not working.

It's ok with you that the employer takes advantage of their employee?
Sometimes you have to SHAME people into doing the right things.

If ATT (actually old SouthWestern Bell/SBC) was not being slimy, they wouldn't need to do this.

[DrDan]

44. they can take a strike vote, or

they can look for another place to work, or
they can dress appropriately

[melm00se]

45. hold a strike vote

and strike

[Occulus]

71. As a union member myself, APWU for over ten years,

HELL YES, I would support any employee of any business wearing a similar shirt. Police, fire, EMTs, teachers, lawyers, doctors, cable workers, store clerks.... any employee under the sun.

Those of us who are union members are routinely astounded and dismayed by the corporate bootlicking that nonunion employees regularly exhibit to their owners. I say owners because everywhere you look these days you see management abuses- for example, WalMart has been known to lock its (nonunion) employees in the store a fter close. Literally, locked in, not allowed to leave, in some cases even if off the clock.

People died to gain the workers' rights most of us take for granted today- days off, a limited workweek (40 hours in many cases), improved safety in the workplace, and on and on. They are, today, rolling over in their graves.

Unions are feared my managers because "it's my business and I can run it how I want to". Well, no. No, sir, you can't. Because we won't let you.

[DrDan]

91. well . . . here is the position in California - probably in the 49 states as well

"Employers can generally set dress code standards for their employees as long as the policies do not discriminate on the basis of gender, race, religion, disability, or any other protected status."

so bluster away - but I don't think you can label this as employer abuse.

http://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2009/06/articles/best-practices/city-dress-code-requires-employees-to-wear-underwear/

[katkat]

12. yeah

Yeah, what you do on your own time is one thing, but you don't go out in public as a representative of your company wearing something that says the company stinks.

[Robb]

13. What do you think a strike *is*, exactly? nt

[DrDan]

16. they are not striking - they are working. . .nt

[Occulus]

73. Even worse for AT&T if they were doing their jobs as instructed. n/t

[GillesDeleuze]

52. the supreme court disagrees, in spirit

workers have a right to wear articles to support concerted activity as long as the article does not harm the ability to do one's job.

a hat, shirt, or button is appropriate.

att is wrong here.

[DrDan]

53. they are in front of customers

I really have my doubts about what you say.

A reference????

[GillesDeleuze]

95. sure, ill dig up the citation

i remember from when i unionized my movie theatre concession stand. my boss got pissed at my Union Yes! button right next to my movie promo button.


customer service is not a reason to trample employee rights

an overview from NLRB says these things are legal:

* Go to meetings about a union or workplace issues
* Read or hand out union flyers in non-work areas during breaks or lunch time
* Wear union buttons, T-shirts, stickers, hats or other items on the job at most worksites (talk to the union or the NLRB if your company has dress code rules)
* Sign a union authorization card
* Sign a petition or file a grievance about problems at work
* Ask other employees to support the union or to do other things on this list
* Talk with coworkers about wages or working conditions.

[DrDan]

54. This is from California - so I really think you are misinterpreting that ruling

you cite. It does not make sense.

"Employers can generally set dress code standards for their employees as long as the policies do not discriminate on the basis of gender, race, religion, disability, or any other protected status."

http://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2009/06/articles/best-practices/city-dress-code-requires-employees-to-wear-underwear/

[New Dawn]

113. You're the type of "Democrat" that gives Nebraska Democrats a bad name.

[bitchkitty]

143. You side with ATT against the union?

More and more, I feel like I'm in the wrong place when I come to DU...

[fasttense]

3. It is interesting that this country prides itself on freedom of speech but in the

workplace we have none. The workplace has become little kingdoms for corporations. The boss, or the corporation, can say whatever they want, but you must hold your tongue or join the unemployment lines. So much for freedom of speech.

[DrDan]

19. you are wrong - neither the "boss" nor the "corporation" cannot say whatever they want

that is not true. Tongues are held on both sides.

Freedom of speech is a "legal" matter. You can say whatever you like - just be prepared for the consequences. If you would like to call your employer any name you care to, you are legally free to do so. Just like you can ask someone visiting your house to leave if you don't like what they are saying. Just be ready to accept the consequences.

[fasttense]

56. Tongues are held on both sides? Really???

Ok, I admit you don't have a right to call your boss an idiot (even if it is true) and insult him because freedom of speech really only applies to political language. You should be able to talk up Unions, emphasize your desire to see health care reform and other political issues. But you can't in your American job.

There are Health Insurance firms directing their employees to town hall meetings (all the while taking names of who and who did not participate in astroturf mobs at meetings). All of this on company time. Using your premiums to bus mobs to protest against reform. And what has happened to theses corporations? NOTHING.

The boss can call you and idiot, a fool, a poor performer, and what are the repercussions? NONE. You could quit and end up on the unemployment line, but is bankruptcy really worth standing up to your idiot boss?

There are Corporations that routinely trash Unions with fake statistics and inundate their employees with anti-union propaganda (which is against the law, but who cares) and what exactly has happened to these corporations? NOTHING, Wal-Mart still requires every employee to attend anti-Union training films and requires employees to report anyone who says anything pro-Union. They have special hotlines set up to take calls from scabs, I mean brainwashed employees on people who are talking pro-Union.

I dare you to go into a Wal-Mart store and start talking about Unions in a loud voice so employees can hear. Wear a T-shirt with pro-Union slogans. See if you don't get escorted immediately out.

This crap you mentions about "You can say whatever you like - just be prepared for the consequences." Well, hell consequences are what violate your freedom of speech. If you went out on a public sidewalk and quoted the Declaration of Independence and was arrested, then you would very likely not do it again. That is a consequence that violates your freedom of speech. These supposed consequences or repercussions for stating your political views (because really freedom of speech only applies to political speech) even in your workplace should not be allowed.

Do we really have free speech if you can lose your job for stating your political opinion?

[DrDan]

64. there are topics that are completely "off limits" to managers

For example, they are subject to legal action if they initiate a converstation of a sexual nature.

Not only that, they are responsible for insuring converstations of that nature are kept out of the work environment - whether they participate or not. Take a complaint of this type to your manager and they are duty-bound to respond. Do they always? Of course not - but the law would be on your side should you push it.

"Be prepared for the consequences" is "crap"? There is a reason for keeping political converstations out of the work place. Look at the relationship between FR and those on this site? Do you think a the environment can remain civil if DUers and Freepers worked side-by-side and were allowed complete freedom in terms of speaking out? Let's say you work in a small restaurant - one that relies on locals for it's existance. Do you think you should be allowed to wander around to various tables expressing your political views? Of course not.

Are you supportive of free-speech in the schools? Lets forget about outbursts that disrupt a class - do you believe you should be able to freely state your opinion without any boundaries?

[Occulus]

75. You've never been a union member, have you? n/t

[DrDan]

76. sure have - a member of the Musicians Union while in college

and in the Teacher's Union a little later. My wife is currently a member of the Teacher's Union - a Union I would typically agree with if they would take a stronger stand.

So - yes I have a Union background.

[Occulus]

81. Well, from your posts here, that is definitely not evident n/t

[DrDan]

84. mistakes can be made on both sides - this is one the union-members made

if they are representing the company to customers, then AT&T has the right to expect their best foot be put forward.

Why is that so unreasonable?

[Occulus]

89. Because they are working without a contract.

I would expect our local to do something similar in a similar situation. I would also expect to not be sent home, not be suspended, and not lose pay, and per our contract, that's exactly what would happen. Especially the pay: per our contract, if I show up, ready, willing, and able to work, I am guaranteed- guaranteed- eight hours pay, regardless.

However, if I, for example, get shorted on my paycheck, my union has already won the right for me to sit in the breakroom for eight hours and get paid for doing nothing until such a time as I am paid in full.

Our contract provides for us to continue under the previous contract during binding arbitration. Said contract only contains provisions for our clothing to be "work appropriate", which means primarily safety. Our shirts can say pretty much whatever, barring profanity (which I think isn't even spelled out explicitly).

Of course, being considered a Federal employee, my rules are different from those in the corporate world. Never, ever think a postal worker can "just be fired". Barring something unquestionably egregious, we can't "just be fired", even for calling in sick frequently. It just doesn't happen to full-timers.

Where I work, AT&T's actions would be considered not only unreasonable, but would in fact at this exact moment in time prompt calls to our Congressman from the union members. Management would end up in extremely hot water with the Congressman, their higher-ups, and the public in general.

[DrDan]

90. "without a contract"??? - not true - the previous contract applies until a new one is negotiated

you cannot determine whether AT&T's actions were appropriate based on your contract. C'mon.

[toopers]

131. And the reason they are working without a contract?

Because they do not have the gonads to strike!

[fasttense]

118. Let's stick to political speech, because that is the only type of speech covered by

the Constitution.

Yes, I do believe you have a right to express your political views at work, in a store, at school, in the bathroom, in a train, anywhere in the US.

It maybe rude, it maybe against decorum, it maybe contrary to established rules and procedures, it maybe boring, it maybe obnoxious, but it is your right.

Just because you get a job doesn't mean you give up your Constitutional rights.

And let's face it, corporations are constantly pushing their political beliefs onto their employees. The health care corporations bussed and supervised their employees as they attended town hall meetings. Wal-Mart has Mandatory anti-Union training and hotlines to rat out anyone who speaks of Unions. If the corporate elites can do it, why can't the workers?

[Honeycombe8]

117. You have learned a lesson, Grasshopper. It is stupid to personally insult the one who feeds you...

and expect him to behave kindly towards you and continue to feed you even more.

This is the way of the world, Grasshopper.

But it also vice versa. You, as an employee, have a right to walk out on the job, if your supervisor walks in wearing a "FASTENSE IS STUPID" t-shirt. And you would probably be able to collect unemployment, since that would be considered a "hostile work environment."

(The supervisor would probably blog on a post somewhere about "what happened to free speech? Seems anyone can say anything at the workplace, except me? Isn't the truth a defense? Fastense IS stupid."

I'm not saying you are stupid, of course. I'm using your name to show you how insulting a t-shirt like that would be to you. It is not a discussion or even geared toward resolving an issue. It's just an insulting t-shirt that doesn't qualify as "freedom of speech."

[fasttense]

119. But the employer Does Not feed me.

I work for him. He does not own me. In exchange for my very valuable labor, he pays me. But today, all we hear about is how great it is the corporate elite can give you a job (as if it is free, as if you don't have to waste most of your life doing routine and boring crap for a petty boss.) He does not give me wages for free. It is a contract that he will pay for my hard work.

The system is set up so that my labor is considered much less valuable than the business or corporation. So the corporation has much more freedom of speech than the worker and everyone goes along with it, never questioning WHY.

[Honeycombe8]

130. I see what you're saying. But you rely on him to pay you. He can get someone else to do your job.

If you want $ from him, you have to treat him with respect (and he has to treat you with respect, if he wants your productivity to stay good). You BOTH have the right to discontinue the relationship, if you want.

You say your job is "waste most of your life doing routine and boring crap for a petty boss." Wow. You need a new job, dude. If you don't like what you chose to spend your life doing all day, 5 days a week, why don't you learn to do something else? That job, that vocation...was your choice. You were not forced to do it.

I made my choice, after some mistakes in the beginning. I found something that's a real pain in the ass, BUT I happen to be good at, it pays well, and I do like the atmosphere, the type of work I do, etc. But hey...I WORK FOR LAWYERS! Can you imagine what I've had to put up with over the years? Oh, yeah...I've been yelled at, blamed for their mistakes, talked to in a condescending way, ignored...you name it. Not always, of course. Not even usually. But it has happened more than a few times.

Your employer does not have more freedom of speech than you do. Wearing an insulting t-shirt in the work place is not freedom of speech. For either you OR your employer. You are BOTH free to say what you want in your contract. You are BOTH required to behave in a businesslike way at the work place, with business decorum and respect for others. That is a GOOD thing.

[mbperrin]

4. I thought truth was always a defense. AT&T is not acting in good faith.

They expect people to work without a contract and without being able to speak up. They ARE prisoners, and the ability to punish with no due process proves it.

Amerika do love some korporate oppression!

[Honeycombe8]

6. Let's say you own a deli. Your workers ask for health care. You say you can't afford it.

Next day they show up for work wearing "Prisoners of Perrin" t-shirts.

I doubt you'd laugh or say well, they're just expressing their opinion. You would probably fire their asses, if you could handle the work that day on your own or have enuf people left over to handle the work.

Wearing those t-shirts would be personal, hostile, and juvenile. You have a business to run. And you would NOT be inclined to then give those workers health care.

[DrDan]

10. well said - I agree

[Robb]

11. And firing them for it would be illegal.

There's a reason the NLRB exists, in part because of people like you. Why in hell are so-called progressives siding with the FUCKING MANAGEMENT OF AT&T?

It was a collective action by the union members. These are not children. They have not had a contract for 157 days. AT&T has publicly said they will "go under like the auto industry" if they don't slash workers' benefits.

What is wrong with you?

[katkat]

14. nothing is wrong with us

They want to picket on their own time, or wear stuff that disses AT&T on their own time, more power to them. But AT&T is paying them for their eight hours.

[Robb]

15. "Picket on their own time."

Jesus. Do you not know how strikes and unions work? :wtf:

[DrDan]

22. this is not a strike - read the artlcle

[Robb]

26. I did. Read several.

There is more to collective bargaining than striking.

Tell us why you are siding with the poor little corporation here. Think they are being treated poorly by the mean old workers?

[DrDan]

30. asking an employee to not wear a company-disparaging

t-shirt as they meet with customers is poor treatment?

Good Lord.

[Robb]

32. This is a fight. The shirts are only today's part of it.

This is about workers with no contract being threatened in the press by management with losing promised benefits.

You really think this is about t-shirts?

[DrDan]

35. it has to do with empoyees being sent home for wearing inappropriate

dress as they meet with customers.

Yes - I think this is about inappropriate t-shirts.

No one was threated with a loss of benefits. They were asked to change - or go home.

[Robb]

38. Good god you can't really think that.

EVERYONE is being threatened with loss of benefits. That is why they put on the shirts. (facepalm)

[DrDan]

41. well - just make up "facts" to suit your position then

that is fine

[Robb]

46. You think I'm making up things that have been in the news???

http://newhavenindependent.org/archives/2009/04/nlrb_backs_unio.php

Response from CWA1298:

While it isn't worth responding line-by-line to the Company's self-serving "Labor Update," we do need to address one of the company's outrageous claims on health care:

"Union-represented Core wireline employees pay similar amounts for their health care as union workers at the Big 3 automakers pay—and it's clear what those sorts of unsustainable costs have done to America's auto industry."

This is the lowest kind of scare tactic: "If you don't let us slash your health care benefits, we'll end up like the auto industry!" It's incredible that AT&T management is trying to draw a parallel between a successful and expanding telecom company and the Big 3. AT&T posted profits of $12.9 billion for 2008 and is on track for solid growth this year. We've shown the company how to save money without massive cost-shifting; yet their only objective is to make us pay more. Clearly, AT&T is looking for scapegoats, not solutions.

[DrDan]

47. that has nothing to do with them being asked to go home

if they don't like the way negotiations are progressing, they should take a strike vote.

If they elect to work - they should work . . . appropriately.

[Robb]

77. So it's "strike or nothing," eh?

There are many tools in the union playbook. I'm sorry you don't think any of them besides striking should be used.

[Occulus]

82. Exactly- work slowdowns, sickouts, literal following of directions

to the point that managers have to issue each and every last instruction individually and in sequence, the "grievance avalanche", sudden onset of headaches among multiple members which send them all home sick, etc.

This poster is all over this thread saying how great AT&T's actions were here, but hasn't come up with one single tactic beyond a strike. If he hadn't said otherwise elsewhere on the thread, I'd assume he was an anti-union corporatist.

But he was in the "Musician's Union" in college and "the teacher's union" for a while after that, and his wife is in "the teacher's union" (does he mean NEA, or some other union I've not heard of?), so I suppose we can forgive him.

:)

[DrDan]

83. I don't happen to have a copy of their contract . . .

this "tool" is pretty lame

What do you suggest they do? I am sure you have a comprehensive strategy to bring the contract to closure.

[Honeycombe8]

116. They have no contract because the union refused to sign. This is what gives unions a bad name.

The AT&T workers are striking for (get this...it'll make you laugh) LIFETIME INSURANCE BENEFITS BEING MAINTAINED. Yeah, I know it's hard to believe. But true.

In the biggest recession in a century. At a time where AT&T executives have waived bonuses and taken cuts in pay. When unemployment is at a decades-high rate of 10%.

Those little pissants are having a temper tantrum 'cause AT&T wanted to cut back on their LIFETIME INSURANCE BENEFITS. When millions in the country have no insurance at all right now, much less any hope of having benefits the next year or the next!

It would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic and greedy.

It shows that it's not JUST rich people who are greedy, even in economic down times. Greed knows no boundaries.

[Robb]

140. And AT&T posted a mere $3.13 billion profit in Q1. nt

[susanr516]

150. Poor AT&T

Only $1 billion profit per month? How will the business survive?

:sarcasm:

[DrDan]

21. that is so closed-minded. Of course you have an obligation to your employer

to say that is not progressive is just ridiculous.

[Robb]

27. It's a two-way street. Why do you hate unions? nt

[DrDan]

29. Huh? That does not even make sense.

Where did I ever say I hated unions?

Of course it is a 2-way street. No argument.

[Honeycombe8]

115. Yes, the deli owner can fire workers for any reason whatsoever, as long as

it doesn't violate federal discriminatory laws (for race, gender, etc.).

The deli owner can just walk in one day and decide he wants a whole new staff, and fire his existing one. Or he can decide he just doesn't personally like an employee, and fire her. It's HIS business. He owns it.

And likewise, the employee can walk in one day and just quit for any reason whatsoever. It's his or her job to quit as s/he wants, and when.

It works both ways.

Union workers have contracts, though. So union contracts may prohibit firings without a procedure to go through, etc. If the employer does, then it could be breach of contract, and the workers could sue.

[1monster]

48. Are you kidding? If I owned a business and my employee showed up with a T-shirt like that, I'd

immediately counter the message with a banner that said something along the lines of "DELI FOODS SO GOOD, YOU CAN'T LEAVE!!! BECOME A PRISIONER OF PERRINS--HAVE A FREE SAMPLE!!! And I'd have T-shirts printed up with a similar "Prisoner of Perrins" message on it about how good the food is... A whole new marketing/public relations campaign could come of it.

Then, if I had been so stupid as to not do it before the rebellion, I'd open a fourm with the employees to explain the problem and ask for employee suggestions on how the problem could be, if not solved, at least mitigated.

Doesn't anyone have any people skills anymore, let alone employee relations skills? :eyes:

[mbperrin]

57. I own rental property. Our employees receive health care, free housing,

and utilities paid.

I'm not broke like poor little AT&T, the poor babes.

They can't even afford to talk, just saving their money any day now, since 5 months have gone by with nothing from them.

If someone in our group has a problem, we hear it. We try to find a solution. This is how we got to utilities paid. Many modest people cannot afford the ridiculous deposits required to get service, so we addressed that.

I'm amazed at the restraint of the workers, still on the job after 150 days.

[DrDan]

67. better to be on the job after 150 days and receive a paycheck

than to forgo that paycheck for 150 days

[fasttense]

58. We are not talking about a small business owner.

There is a world of difference between a small deli and AT&T.

Corporation's liabilities are limited, they are given special tax breaks (or allowed to hide their profits in off shore accounts). They have larger pools of money to weather economic problems. They control the lives of a huge number of American citizens and can affect the economy very easily.

If the deli closed, only a handful of citizens would be impacted, but if AT&T closed, it would bring down the local economy. Comparing AT&T to a local Deli is like comparing a gorilla to an ant.

[DrDan]

68. the laws affecting employees are pretty much the same

A&T can ask them to not wear those t-whirts just as a small deli owner could. Both can expect the employee to comply.

[fasttense]

121. And both the Deli and AT&T would be taken to court.

There is a reason why labor law makes it illegal to fire members who talk about Unions in the workplace. Because you have freedom of speech. Not that the federal gubermint has enforced those laws recently.

Yet, I still insist that the small Deli and AT&T are 2 different monsters. The small businesses have been fed a load of crap by the corporations. They have been lumped together as if they are brothers in arms against the mass unwashed of Labor. Yet, small businesses are really different and unique, unlike corporations.

[Honeycombe8]

5. Good. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

Going to work with an anti-employer t-shirt on is one of the stupidest things I've heard of workers to do. Honestly, what did they hope to accomplish by that? Getting people to agree with them?

I'd say they seriously need some new leadership in that union.

[bowens43]

8. They don't need to get the corporate shills to agree with them

they need to disrupt as much as possible until the idiots who run AT&T decide to bargain in good faith. The union members have been more then patient. This was an excellent tactic that more then likely had the desired affect.

[scentopine]

17. democrats too ready to obey our corporate masters

Good for the workers for bucking the system.

Once again you won't find any democratic leadership on the scene supporting workers, making speeches or getting face time in the media.

It wouldn't be centrist and bi-partisan.

Fox will have something else to say about it however.

[DrDan]

24. it is completely appropriate for a company - or corporation - to expect

"appropriate" appearance and behavior in performing their job - particularly when interfacing with customers.

[Robb]

28. So you think AT&T's threats in the press are "appropriate"? nt

[DrDan]

31. this is about employees wearing inappropriate clothing

as they meet with customers.

Lets stay on topic.

[Robb]

33. During a contract fight.

More than 150 days of negotiations during which AT&T threatens the workers in the press, and no contract.

[DrDan]

37. they are on the job - the negotiations continue

they need to act like they are on the job.

They can vote to strike - they have not done so.

[Robb]

39. Yet 1,000 of them voted to wear the shirts to pressure AT&T into action. nt

[DrDan]

42. I don't care if a million voted

the work environment is not a democracy - they don't vote on what they want to do. Those t-shirts are inappropriate for meeting customers.

If they want to strike - they can vote to do so.

[1monster]

49. Own much AT&T stock?

on edit: picture a snarky grin smilie here

[DrDan]

51. so you think employees should have the complete freedom to do

whatever they wish?

Is that what you think?

You think it is appropriate for employees to wear disparaging t-shirts for performing their jobs with customers? You think that is ok?

My stock holdings have nothing to do with it.

[1monster]

55. What I really thought is that you are far too shrill on this issue. Usually that means

self-interest is involved.

I would decide on a case by case basis.

I'm not all that enamoured with AT&T. I stopped liking them when they offered me a good telephone service deal several years ago, and then I got the bill for more than double what I was offered.

AT&T was once known for taking care of their employees and their customers. They were one of the best companies to work for. Phone down? It was repaired within hours.

Not anymore. They screw their customers every which way they can, and apparently, the do worse with their employees.

[WriteDown]

61. I've tried to wear sweatpants to my office many times...

in...uh....er....protest! Each time HR tells me I cannot. I feel I'm being discriminated against.

[DrDan]

69. is someone else in your company allowed to wear sweatpants?

If not - then how are you being discriminated against?

[WriteDown]

74. Sorry....

Sometimes facetiousness does not translate well. :).

[scentopine]

104. I've noticed reverse trend in engineering

tenured managers, owners dress like complete slobs. Sweatpants, flip flops, baggy shorts. Because they can.

I refuse that bullshit. However, if I ever screw over my employees and they are forced to vote en mass to protest with a tee shirt, I have failed miserably as a manager and should be removed.

[DrDan]

63. thngs have changed in the work environment - but . . . one thing I am POSITIVE about

AT&T is not alone in going through many changes - some that have had a significant negative impact on employees.

But it is not fair to generalize and assume ALL decisions and actions are bad.

This one is well within the bounds of what is appropriate.

[laughingliberal]

126. We could do a whole thread on how crappy AT&T is to customers

And isn't this what we see from corporate America these days? Charge the maximum, give the minimum. Whether their employees or their customers. As for the T-shirts, I think it may have been that the workers knew they would be sent home, not sure. But, the suspensions got more attention for their cause. That could be a good thing.

[fasttense]

59. Corporations without Unions are feudal systems, run by kings and queens, and not democracies.

A Union is what makes the work place a democracy.

All work environments should be democratic in a democratic country.

[DrDan]

65. you have to be kidding

If you owned a business, lets say a small sandwich shop. You would rely of a vote to decide which sandwiches to offer? How to make each sandwich? How much to charge? How much each person should be paid? What the hours of operation should be? How often to clean?

You would put all of that up for a vote among employees?

A Union makes a work place a democracy ONLY because union members vote on a contract that has been negotiated by representatives. If an issue goes beyond the contract, there is no vote. For example, who is promoted within management, what products will be produces, where sold etc.

You cannot vote on who your manager is, or their manager. You cannot vote on the board members. You cannot vote on benefits or pay they receive. Do you really think you should have that right as an employee?

[scentopine]

103. Prefectly republican response, but consider this

Corporations have largely put small sandwich shops out of business. In fact, there is almost no such thing as a "small sandwich shop" left in America. In this case corporations have enormous influence over the work environment (like wallmart) or public policy. McDonalds or Subway, et al can in one administrative swoop, institute policies that are unfair and exploitative. And the political avenues for swift action addressing reasonable grievances are nearly non-existent.

There is virtually no representation in America for workers. It has always struck me that the most profitable and productive time in Americas growth occurred when unions had far more influence. While democrats quietly accept outsourcing and outrageous salaries and perks for corporate execs, we chide the small protest of inequity.

As worker influence has declined so has quality of life - I believe this is causal. People are free to disagree. But, no one can look me in the eye and say we are all better off with the steady decline of American middle class and corporate explosion in executive salaries.

So in summary, fuck AT&T. They can more than look after themselves.

[DrDan]

105. let's knock off the personal insults ("perfectly republican response")

I assume you meant "perfect republican response". That is not needed nor wanted on this site.

Take it to free republic if you want to issue insults toward DUers.

Your post is rife with generalizations. I am speaking of one particular incident - where workers wore disparaging t-shirts while facing customers. Whether working in a large or small place of business, that is not appropriate. There are responsibilities on both sides - and the workers in this case ignored theirs.

"They can more than look after themselves" - yes they can, and they did . . . appropriately.

[scentopine]

107. It was a perfectly republican response, hardly an insult -

You are free to disagree, but it was perfectly republican. You look after AT&T, some of us will look after the those of us trapped in the corporate hell that masquerades as government. AT&T should be proud of your vigilance on this issue.

[DrDan]

108. I consider it an insult

I have paid my dues to the D's - and don't need your insults.

I am not "looking" after anyone - just stating my opinion about the action taken against these employees. Had I owned a business and had someone show up in a similar shirt, they would be working elsewhere today. Free speech has it's limits - you cannot denegrate your employer to customers and not expect consequences.

Do not read anything into my support for AT&T in this incident beyond what I have stated. THAT would be purely republican.

[scentopine]

112. It is not an insult. You and AT&T should deal with the consequences.

And I consider your remarks perfectly provincial. So what. Get over it.

Corporations have plenty of rights. Employees have few.

If a thousand of your employees agreed to wear a tee shirt claiming to be your prisoner - YOU should be fired for being a terrible manager.

People don't take organized action like this unless it is serious business.

It is positively refreshing to see workers looking after their own best interests for a change.

If there is a tee shirt for sale, I'll buy it.

By chance, do you know where I can buy one?

[DrDan]

114. all blunder and bluster

the consequences were appropriate

Those that truly have a spine and believe in their cause would vote to strike. What do they do? Wear a silly t-shirt. Oh well - there are those that consider that an act of bravery, aren't there? I would respond to those voting to strike with respect.

[DrDan]

120. you know - those workers being sent home was

done under the provisions of the contract - I can 100% guarantee you that. The AT&T spokesman admitted it when he stated that had they worked in a customer care role, they would have been left alone.

So . . . . guess who voted to ratify that contract - those same workers.

When the contract expired (probably a 3-year contract - they have been for years), both parties agree to continue under the provisions of the existing contract as they continue to negotiate. That implies responsibilities on both sides - more than implies - strictly lays out the provisions for both sides. AT&T pays according to the contract, promotes according to the contract, assigns shifts according to the process defined by the contract, provides benefits according to the contract. The employees agree to work according to the appropriate provisions. They did not and action was taken according to the contract.

If the employees do not like the provisions, they and their representatives know what they can do - vote to strike. They didn't - and they therefore did agree to continue under the existing contract.

They are therefore bound to follow those provisions.

If they don't want to do that - they should have the guts to vote to strike. They decided not to.

[scentopine]

129. Civil disobedience in the worst economy in 50 years. Bravo.

I am hoping they will strike. I also know this is a first step in that direction. I applaud their civil disobedience.

I detest those that would expend so much energy fighting for the "rights" of AT&T without a breath of interest in the concerns of the employees.

I maintain my position - anytime you have a hundreds of people agree on anything there is something to it. Especially in the worst economy in most peoples lifetime.

My position is basic. I hold the management who let things get so far out of control responsible such that workers felt they had no recourse but to do what they did.

Workers don't like putting themselves at risk as they have everything to lose.

Executive management has nothing to lose. Executive management should be fired for bad management. Executive management has put the AT&T brand at risk by letting this escalate. It is a cold hard indisputable fact that workers have nearly net zero income increase in last 8 years. Executive management pay has increased 40% or more.

Now, if you all could tell me where I can buy one of those tee shirts to wear around town, I'd kindly appreciate it.

[DrDan]

133. your ability to generalize knows no bounds

I happen to be a union-supporter. I have been a member of 2 in the past. My wife is currently a member of the Teacher's union. I quite often disagree with them - but almost always when they do not take a firm enough stand. You just insist on reading into posts positions that aren't there. I think the difference between us is that I see responsibilities on both sides - you refuse to accept the employess have any.

[Robb]

134. I find it fascinating you seem to parrot AT&T's position in general.

Specifically your "strike or shut up" stance on this issue.

Which is exactly what AT&T corporate told this union.

Because this is the only local left in the nation without a new contract. So general strike support would be low, and corporate knows it.

There are responsibilities on both sides, you are correct. But when the management is not acting in good faith, rank and file is freed somewhat in their actions as well.

Further, you are at best being disingenuous in saying you are a "union supporter." Being in professions where union membership is a de facto requirement for employment does not count. ;)

[DrDan]

138. why make up crap . . .

my membership in 2 unions was completely voluntary. I supported those unions. I support my wife's membership.

Brother . . . .

So - interesting that the rest of the CWA members are content with the proposed contract. Sounds like they cannot even gather support from fellow-CWA members.

I am sure you voiced your indignanation to the other locals - in that they are not supporting this one local.

[Robb]

141. You assume each local has the same contract with AT&T? nt

[DrDan]

142. there is a contract - with local provisions - correct?

[scentopine]

136. I believe civil disobedience is appropriate and correct here

I am sticking to the facts (not speculating or generalizing) that

- whereas, in the worst economy in 80 years (I correct myself) where unemployement is reaching new highs every quarter
- whereas, employee compensation has declined for nearly a decade, while executive management wages have in fortune 500 companies have grown by as much as 40 to 50%
- whereas, out sourcing to countries with dismal human rights records to avoid employee benefits and rights is at record highs
- whereas, corporate investment to train unskilled labor (i.e. labor with minimal/no schooling) in Asia is outstripping municipal budgets for public schooling in USA
- whereas, employees in Asia will work for $7 an hour and risk getting fired when they get sick
- whereas, corporate campaign donations to our two converging political parties is at record highs
- whereas, organizing two people to take action against management is difficult enough, hundreds is amazing
- whereas, AT&T has a ruthless track record against employees - union and nonunion
- whereas, AT&T receives special treatment and protection for their cooperation with US government wiretapping of US citizens.
- whereas, management should realize that as income inequality increases there will be more of this kind of action by employees
- whereas, management is accountable for maintaining the cherished AT&T brand that so many people here are ready to protect

I am giving the benefit of the doubt to those who took all the risk. And admire them for bucking the corporate system.

Now tell me again how I am wrong to defend these people?

And I guess I'll have go get a tee shirt myself.

[DrDan]

139. you have just proven my point

I voiced support for ONE SPECIFIC incident. You generalize that that to the extreme. You are a master of this Glenn-Beck-like attempt-at-logic. Not unlike his ridiculous "proof" that communism is rampant in NYC because of the architecture.

How do you know AT&T has a ruthless track-record against employees? Have you ever been an AT&T employee? How many of these employees would like to stay with AT&T for the balance of their working careers? How many apply for jobs at AT&T daily? How many are leaving daily because of "ruthless" treatment? Why is it that many other locals have already approved the contract?

You think "hundreds" is amazing? How many CWA members work for AT&T? over 100K. So . . . go ahead and get that shirt. Am I supposed to be offended by that? You are sooooooo far off-base.

[DrDan]

144. isn't this facinating . . . .

although "ruthless" in their treatment of employees - "a clear majority of eligible voters participating, members that work for AT&T Midwest voted overwhelmingly in favor of ratifying the tentative agreement reached on July 15th with AT&T."

http://district4.cwa-union.org/news/district-4-members-overwhelmingly-ratify-contract-with-at-t-midwest.html

hmmmmm - guess they are unaware of how "ruthlessly" AT&T treats their employees.

[DrDan]

145. well I'll be darned

"IBEW Reach Tentative Agreement in Core Contract Negotiations"

http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=27032

I guess they are not aware of how "ruthless" their employer is . . .

"Income inequality" - seems like they are agreeing to contract terms . . . . doesn't it? hmmmmmmmmm - could pay NOT be included in the contract for their approval? Perhaps - but . . . . somehow I doubt it. Guess they are satisfied.

[scentopine]

146. man - you are some piece of work. troll status at this point.

[DrDan]

147. you come in with 300 posts

I have been here since 2001 and you call me a troll?

that is rich.

You made the claims of "ruthlessness". I simply challenged that with citations where the unions are ratifying contracts with AT&T. There is certainly a message there. Perhaps you overstated your case.

yathink?

[scentopine]

148. My first job was with AT&T,

30 years later I am still smack in the middle of the telecommunications business. If you've made a phone call there is a good chance some where in the system my design or work is processing that call. I have been involved with significant intellectual property matters with AT&T and have worked with 100s of AT&T employees.

Your obsession over this is past the point of disturbing and your regaling of some sort of perceived victory is also disturbing. And yes, I consider this has become personal with you and regret engaging. So many attack posts on this topic betray you as a troll, 1000 posts or not.

I have nothing to prove with you and am ending it here.

Have a great day.

[DrDan]

149. let me say I continue to work with 100s of AT&T employees

I can't remember any of them EVER claiming ruthlessness on the part of AT&T. Sounds like a case of "sour grapes".

Troll? I think not. As previously stated, your generalization of stated positions is nothing more than beck-like.

[fasttense]

123. There you go again lumping small businesses together with corporations.

The corporate propaganda has certainly had it's effect on you.

I've worked with and for Unions. They have never decided what the final product would be. But, what you describe might not be a bad idea. What so awful about it?

In fact there is a local auto parts manufacture here that is totally worker owned. And, for the most part they do exactly as you describe. People are on waiting lists to work there, even during the Clinton years. I've had friends who have taken cuts in pay to be able to work there.

When the recession hit, they laid NO ONE off, I guess they couldn't. They are still busily producing car parts and distributing profits to their workers.

I also know someone who got voted out of management and went to work on the assembly line. Yes, they vote on their managers and bosses.

It is very interesting that you find what you describe as beyond reality. And yet it can and does work.

[scentopine]

99. I think civil disobedience is in high demand and short supply

I am sure they knew the risks. Good for them anyway. People need to start taking a stand against corporate control.

Civil disobedience is necessary but since Reagan fired ATC no one dares any sort of worker protest.

We have no one, not democrat nor republican to support working people.

The execs at AT&T have the white house, supreme court and most of congress on their side.

Common employees have ZERO thanks to neo-dems and neo-libs and neo cons.

There is NO real difference between republicans and democrats that will improve the quality of life in America.

We should be marching by the millions. Instead we kiss our corporate master's ass for allowing us "free speech zones" somewhere off in a corner where no one can see.

[zogofzorkon]

62. They should be thankful its T shirts

and not slow downs, following directions literally, accidental damage to equipment and other creative ways to express displeasure. Why do so many here always side w/ the moneyed and not w/ the people that actually do the work?

[DrDan]

70. well - in this case, perhaps it is because AT&T is correct in their request

pretty hard to answer your question in general - it is a pretty broad question.

[scentopine]

100. Why do so many here always side w/ the moneyed - ?

Because the right wing has been so thoroughly successful that things like torture, working without a contract, union bashing, on and on that this message is perfectly in synch with democrats.

The tee shirt idea is a perfect example of civil disobedience. It came with risk and obviously many felt it was worth the risk.

AT&T has an army of lawyers, most of congress, the complete executive branch (they are at the epi-center of wiretapping scandal), even the supreme court and our most "liberal" nominee talks about corporate rights and corporate citizenship in the same breath as citizen rights.

In short, there are few democrats left. Instead we have prudish right wingers scolding us for making a big deal about corporations, torture, Iraq war, etc

Today's democrats are very much like the early neo-cons - full of brimming optimism in the purity of corporate governance and the private "free" market no matter what the cost in lives and real public dollars.

We should be marching together, instead we get lectured about politeness and "things from the left" by Obama and our democratic leadership.

So, as these "democrats" continue to screw us over, please, by all means, lets take it like real men and not go on about it.

Grrrrrrr.

[vinylsolution]

50. Stand up, stand together....

Never forget - we outnumber them.

[TheCoxwain]

86. I wonder why the manager is personally offended? .. It is not that the workers were wearing

a shirt saying "prisoners of Manager X at AT&T" ..


and AT&T is not person , at not a person whose feeling are going to be hurt!!

so why should anyone care ???



I dont understand people at times!

[DrDan]

92. because they are out dealing with customers wearing those shirts

of course the manager should be concerned.

I do agree, however, I often do not understand people either.

[scentopine]

101. see my post above about the rise of the corporate citizen...

with special rights, immunity from prosecution and unfettered policy making authority. Sound crazy? Nope. IT will become a household word, like Wall Street derivatives, Enron and the latest reform "health reform".

Fuck AT&T. Boooo FUCKING Hooooo.

What the hell - are customers going to go over to the competitor? Oh wait, they have a virtual monopoly, are at the center of wiretapping US citizens and are fighting for the destruction of net neutrality and slowly buying off congress soul by blackened soul !~

Oh I feel so bad for poor little AT&T - sniff - bad people, bad tee shirt

Grrrrr.

[scentopine]

102. We must stop this now - or everyone will be wearing ...

prisoner of AT&T tee shirts.

By the way - anyone know where I can order one?

If we had any balls we'd be selling them on this site.

[Zodiak]

93. Woohooo.....41 anti-union, pro-corporate posts all by the same poster in this thread

Someone's agenda is hanging out, because normally even a stubborn person gets tired of writing posts after 20.

[zogofzorkon]

94. Borgs never tire nt

[DrDan]

109. when correct one must remain strong and vigilant

[Zodiak]

125. ...make that 42

And I'm sure Orly Taitz agrees with you

[DrDan]

127. your contribution is overwhelming

43

[LanternWaste]

128. I imagine most people feel

I imagine most people feel much better validated they think they themselves belong to the "correct" side of a subjective equation and anyone who disagrees is wrong. A first step towards the martyrdom-syndrome I would guess...

ed:sp

[fasttense]

124. Yeah, the corporate agenda is busily trying to con us. n/t

[toopers]

132. Dr. Dan's posts were not anti-union . . .

His posts have been specific to one action the union has taken.

[zogofzorkon]

135. Imagine if

slowdowns, literal following of directions, accidental damage of property or robot like performance of duty had been the action taken. I am sure Dr. Dan would have shown strong support. However I doubt it would be for the unions. Yeah his posts implicitly if not explicitly are anti labor. Holding the cup just so at afternoon tea isn't a working mans position.

[JonQ]

96. Most companies won't let you publicly

bad mouth them while you're on the clock.

Try this: wear a F*ck (blank) shirt, where blank is the name of whatever company employs you to work next week. See how long you get to keep your job.

[LanternWaste]

97. Glad to see illustrations of worker's solidarity...

Glad to see illustrations of worker's solidarity in action. Unions may take the blows, but unions make the changes...

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vidar]

111. Give the workers paid vacation & a corporate jet as reparation.

[Tim01]

122. I love it when my employees wear a shirt that says they don't like me. nt

[xc8mip]

151. PRISONER OF AT&T

Teeshirt logo is perfectly reasonable for union members working without contract .It was AT&T choice to have such outcome and frankly I found weird most of the comments here focused on speculated stipulations what may or not be
it's "PRISONER OF AT&T" on teeshirt - nothing more ,nothing less