AT&T Announces Thousands of Layoffs, Firings Just In Time For Christmas

[MarcATL]

AT&T: We are giving all our workers a $1K bonus!

TRUMP: See, I told you, my corporate tax cut is working!!!

[3 days later]

AT&T: Oh yeah, and we are also laying off 1,000+ workers. And probably a lot more next year

TRUMP: [Out golfing]

AT&T announces thousands of layoffs, firings just in time for Christmas

Why do you rightwing fools fall for the okie doke every. single. time?

#SMHGOP #LOLGOP

 

[Kat]

old news

 

[ScienceRocks]

About time to use the good old anti-trust and break at&t the hell up!

 

[Roudy]

Old, and...fake news. He missed the other more important half of the story:

AT&T hands out bonuses to 200,000 workers, pink slips to 600 others

 

[Faun]

old news

Translation: please stop reminding us that Trump’s tax plan is failing already.

 

[Kat]

old news

Translation: please stop reminding us that Trump’s tax plan is failing already.

Translation: old news. Duh.

 

[Kat]

old news

Translation: please stop reminding us that Trump’s tax plan is failing already.

BTW who is us??

 

[Faun]

old news

Translation: please stop reminding us that Trump’s tax plan is failing already.

BTW who is us??

Whomever is trying to brush this off as old news, of course.

 

[Kat]

old news

Translation: please stop reminding us that Trump’s tax plan is failing already.

BTW who is us??

Whomever is trying to brush this off as old news, of course.

Well, I considered it old because I heard it already. Oh read this post....

AT&T Announces Thousands of Layoffs, Firings Just In Time For Christmas

 

[Penelope]

The point of the trump and pubs tax cut and job creator was to "create" more jobs, not give bonuses to workers.

 

[Kat]

The point of the trump and pubs tax cut and job creator was to "create" more jobs, not give bonuses to workers.

But the bonuses along with more jobs is a good thing, right?

 

[Penelope]

The point of the trump and pubs tax cut and job creator was to "create" more jobs, not give bonuses to workers.

But the bonuses along with more jobs is a good thing, right?

No, they are not hiring but laying off. They probably give bonuses every year and with the trillions they are going to make off of repeal of net neutrality and deregulation, its a drop in the bucket.

Better to have more people working, is it not?

 

[irosie91]

The point of the trump and pubs tax cut and job creator was to "create" more jobs, not give bonuses to workers.

so?

 

[irosie91]

The point of the trump and pubs tax cut and job creator was to "create" more jobs, not give bonuses to workers.

But the bonuses along with more jobs is a good thing, right?

seems so to me

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

But the bonuses along with more jobs is a good thing, right?

Not if it's making Obama look inept.

 

[Kat]

The point of the trump and pubs tax cut and job creator was to "create" more jobs, not give bonuses to workers.

But the bonuses along with more jobs is a good thing, right?

No, they are not hiring but laying off. They probably give bonuses every year and with the trillions they are going to make off of repeal of net neutrality and deregulation, its a drop in the bucket.

Better to have more people working, is it not?

Better to have both, is it not?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The GOP tax scam will do nothing to create new jobs.

Corporations are not going to use their tax cut windfall to create new jobs – the windfall will be used to further enrich shareholders and investors while continuing to implement layoffs to maximize profits.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

old news

Translation: please stop reminding us that Trump’s tax plan is failing already.

Please tell the voters how much democrats are opposed to the tax cut.

 

[Penelope]

The point of the trump and pubs tax cut and job creator was to "create" more jobs, not give bonuses to workers.

But the bonuses along with more jobs is a good thing, right?

No, they are not hiring but laying off. They probably give bonuses every year and with the trillions they are going to make off of repeal of net neutrality and deregulation, its a drop in the bucket.

Better to have more people working, is it not?

Better to have both, is it not?

No better to have more people working and besides isn't that what this jobs creation was suppose to be.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Why do you rightwing fools fall for the okie doke every. single. time?

That's exactly what folks are beginning to figure out they fell for: the okie doke, the bait and switch.

• May 2017: Pittsburgh Workers press Trump for offshoring protections -- Pitt voters are among those pivotal voters who made Trump's win possible. Apparently, he forgot about them because he didn't insist that the recently passed tax bill include some sort of putative provisions that supported the sort sort of job-protection the workers discussed just below sought and pinned on Trump their hopes of obtaining.
  • A focus of the 47-day strike [last spring] was anxiety that Verizon, and other companies that operate call centers, would open more offshore locations in places such as Latin America, India and the Philippines — accelerating a trend that has been sweeping through the telecommunications industry for the past two decades.
    
    Now, with AT&T workers on the verge of a nationwide strike citing similar concerns, call center workers see a political opportunity as well as a negotiating one. Picking up President Donald Trump’s promises to bring back American jobs, [workers at AT&T] are pushing for legislation that penalizes companies such as Verizon and AT&T, and their vendors — Alorica, Ibex Global and Teleperformance — for operating overseas.
    (Source)
• May 2017: AT&T Agrees to Bring 3,000 Jobs Back to U.S. in New Labor Pact
• November 2017: AT&T is seriously thirsty for Trump’s tax cuts
• November 2017: CEOs asked if they plan to increase their company's capital investments if the GOP's tax bill passes. A few hands go up. "Why aren't the other hands up?" Gary Cohn asks.

Let me be very clear. I do not at all favor protectionist legislation, so I'm not annoyed that the legislation the workers noted in the Pittsburgh story has not come to fruition. The reason I'm remarking in this thread an on the Pitt workers are these:

• Trump promised protectionist legislation and the people who voted for him want as much.
• Trump could have insisted the tax bill include some sort of tax increase, tax penalty, something "hard hitting" and unavoidable, if U.S. companies offshore jobs.
  
  He did nothing of the sort. He didn't even make rumblings about doing something along those lines. Just complete "radio silence" is what workers desirous of some sort of protection received.
  
  Trump could have proposed something as simple as "if a company offshores jobs, it's marginal tax rate will revert to the 1980 marginal corporate tax rate until such time as those jobs are eliminated overseas and restored in the U.S. or double the quantity offshored are created in the U.S." That's just one idea; there're myriad ways to have structured a job-protecting provision in the newly created law.
• My single largest complaint about Trump and the reason far above all others why I have never supported Trump is that it's forever been clear to me that one, that is "regular people," cannot rely on a damn thing that man says.
  
  It doesn't bother me that Trump didn't push for a protectionist measure; it bothers me that he promised he'd protect and restore jobs in America and he's spent the whole of his first year in office without seeing passed a single piece of legislation to achieve that; moreover, he's signed not one trade deal in place of or better than the TPP, nor has he cancelled the U.S.' participation in NAFTA, which are to major job-related things he promised to do. (I bid any number of "regular folks" to show quantifiably and incontrovertibly/indisputably how the U.S. no being part of the TPP has helped their employment situation.)
  
  For folks having net worths in the $10M+ range, it's a different matter because they don't need the protection because they've already managed to hold-down good paying jobs without any such protections. Truly the question "regular people" should be asking themselves is "how many more opportunities to do right by them will Trump let slip by?"
• Through the whole of the 2016 presidential campaign, "regular people," lo all of us, were told time and time again that Trump cannot be trust, were told that Trump's promises were nothing more than lip service to get votes, were told that he's got a long track record of screwing over tens of thousands of "little guys" who worked at his casinos, subcontracted for him, attended his "shell game" of a university, shown that for all his protectionist talk he's made no effort to onshore his own clothing manufacturing, and more. Yet in the face of all that, at Trump's mere utterance of "fake news" and and other so-called anti-establishment rhetorical sophistry [1], thousands, maybe millions, of people simply ignored the sound and well considered input they received from institutions and organizations that have, unlike Trump, acted more or less altruistically for as long as they've been around.
• People who put Trump in the WH thought he'd be their way of "sticking it to" the rest of us who found ways to avail ourselves of the economic transformation that's been taking place since the 1980s. They were told by everyone except Trump that was not going to happen. Whom did they choose to believe? Trump. And now, with these layoffs by AT&T, we are seeing that Trump isn't going to do anything for them. Trumpkins let their partisan animus and quest for vengeance -- emotions that, frankly, would have landed any Republican in the WH, so bad a candidate was H. Clinton -- outstrip whatever good sense they may have once had, and so they got Trump nominated rather than one of his GOP primary competitors. [2]

Notes:

1. Let me be clear. As a member of the so-called establishment, I can assure anyone that "the establishment" harbors no general disdain for "regular people." It doesn't because every member of "the establishment" knows damn well that (1) at some point in time, they weren't members of "the establishment" and (2) without "regular people," their rise into "the establishment" would not have happened, and (3) "the establishment" (economically) is the most welcoming club there is because there more people there are in it, the wealthier "everyone" is, and the only way that happens is for "regular people" to rise into the ranks of "the establishment." Quite simply, the wealthier one is, the more business transactions one effects.
   
   On the other hand, "the establishment" does not like Donald Trump and would just as soon have nothing to do with him; there's no mistaking that. It doesn't because he cannot be trusted. Not all things are so simple, but that is.
2. OT: If any of the other GOP candidates had won, I wouldn't even have joined USMB because there'd be nothing I'd have felt a need to discover.