They cite a changing business mix...well duh! They took over Pac Bell/SBC last summer in California and promptly raised rates with no new services. You think those already paying monthly cell phone rates are going to go for that? Why are all these mergers considered good for the consumer, when all they seem to lead to are increased rates? I lived through the breakup of Ma Bell, I stayed with Pac Bell/SBC for all those years, but since At&T took over and doubled the cost of my land line you think I am going to continue with that sort of service? http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081204/bs_nm/us_att_7
And they cite union labor as one of the big problems but they don't mention that they pay their CEO 18 million annually and AT&T Inc. Chief Executive Edward Whitacre will be given one of the highest-paying retirement packages in 2007, weighing in at $158.5 million. http://populistblog.com/2008/03/28/...all-cant-find-qualified-american-workers.aspx
AT&T Swallowed up Bell South last year. The Mega Telco is back just in time for the landline being decalred as obsolete. All kinds of comptition from VOIP, cellphones WiFi, Cable companies & bundle packages. Ronnie Ray Gun chopped up Ma Bell because it was said that it was monopolistic. He had only to wait 15 years for technology to spread it out. AT&T does bring a good cheap stand alone DSL line. $20 monthly in most markets, add on a Vonage or Skype internet phone and you have hi speed internet and a phone for $40.00 total monthly. http://www2.dslreports.com/
My theory is that a lot of companies and especially tech companies like AT&T only have a bunch of employees to make the national employmant rates look good. How many AT&T costomer service people does it take to screw in a lightbulb? none, they'd have to get their manager. Now that money is tight, companies cant afford to pay for useless people with worthless jobs.
This is true also when companies make great profit some years they hire extra workers to absorb it so they don’t have to give it all to shareholders or make earning look erratic they want just enough to keep them invested. Then when profits fall they can lay them off to keep profits up. A giant balancing act to keep the rich investors comfortable, happy and free from heartburn. When earning start dropping they lay off people so shareholders don’t flee. Wouldn’t it be better for the rich to lose a few percent of earnings and thousands keep jobs? Hahaaa not for the top %3 The big problem all the major corporations have cut labor so far it is at the edge of a cliff…. First they sent jobs to Mexico for cheaper wages then they cut employment again sent jobs to India then to Asia for even cheaper wages. Now most stuff is manufactured for like $3 a day labor in Asia so how can they cut cost more? Now the whole system has to deflate or crumble.
