Bell Atlantic

Michael Eisenscher meisenscher at igc.apc.org
Wed Aug 12 22:01:31 PDT 1998


I'd sure call what you describe here a "victory." The system is sufficiently automated that the company could have maintained a reasonable level of service for some time if they had decided to resist. Do you have an explanation for why management was willing to put this on the table after only 2 1/2 days? How much of this is influenced by the merger mania that has infected the industry? Who actually led these negotiations? Did that make a difference?

Michael E.

At 09:13 PM 8/12/1998 EDT, MScoleman at aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 98-08-12 11:41:31 EDT, doug writes:
>
><< Maggie (or anyone else) - today's New York Times describes the Bell
> Atlantic contract as a great labor victory. Is this true?
>
> Doug >>
>
>Well, "great labor victories" are difficult to define and the subject of
>eternal debate, HOWEVER, as to the contract, I picked up the points sheet when
>I went in at midnight last night and it doesn't look bad. And frankly, we got
>alot more for a 2 1/2 day strike this time than we got for 17 weeks in 1989.
>The main points:
>
>-- It is a two year contract, we got 3.8% immediately, 4% next August, and a
>$500 bonus at ratification, and a $400 bonus on the one year aniversary of
>ratification. Effectively, this means we got paid to strike.
>-- Several lower level job titles got "break-outs" or raises in pay and
>pension bands that are higher than top paid job titles, meaning lower paid
>workers got more money both now and for retirement than higher paid craft
>titles. For some this will significantly close the gap between lower and
>higher paid workers. This will disproportionately benefit women and minority
>employees since they are disproportionally represented in the lower paid
>titles.
>-- The company has been hiring temporary workers for some time, paying them
>less, and denying them benefits. Anyone hired prior to April is now permanent
>and they will be receiving back pay and benefits and bargained for vacation
>time.
>-- By hiring all these temporary workers, permanent employees in lower level
>titles have been wholesale denied upgrades to higher paid titles through the
>internal job ladder. Almost 1000 new slots will be made immediately available
>to upgrades and as senior people retire throughout 1999 from the early
>retirement package they are FINALLY going to honor, significant portions of
>opening positions will go to upgrades.
>-- There is a unilateral no-layoff clause (which is very complicated, but to
>lay-off people they have to spend boocoop bucks, so it's easier to offer early
>retirements). The non-union center in Virginia will be shut down over the
>next year-two, new work in television cable departments will go to union
>people, a technicial support group which is all management will now be all
>craft, and alot of our internal installation of equipment will revert to our
>own craft people instead of outside contractors. The company will be allowed
>to contract out 1/2% of all work.
>-- The early retirement package negotiated in 1994 will be made available to
>all 13,000 eligible employees through 1999 even though the "surplus" the
>package was negotiated for has disappeared. Specifically, no one in my title
>(switchman, er person) and none of the outside crafts (splicer,
>install/repair) have been allowed to take the package and now we will. In
>fact, I got mine in the mail today. We all get to pick the four quarters of
>1999 (march, june, september, december) and then the company will inform us as
>to when we can leave. There is a 5% increase in pension immediately, a 5%
>increase in September, and for those who choose to stay until 2001 and not
>leave early, a 15% increase in pension.
>-- other than that there were a whole lot of little plusses: increases in the
>payouts on dental procedures, increase in pay for saturdays.....
>
>overall, a nice contract, maggie coleman mscoleman at aol.com
>
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list