<< Thanks for your detailed response. I agree that new tech can be an achilles
heel of a complex system as well as a boon to management control and their
ability to maintain systems operating during strikes. But unless the
systems at Bell Atlantic were significantly different from those installed
in other companies, this would not explain why in this case as compared to
others, the company folded so quickly. There have been instances where
longer strikes were taken because management could count on those
technologies to sustain operations at minimal, if erratic, levels without
the customary complement of workers. The fact that so many of the Telecom
Industry middle-management were promoted from the ranks enhances these
firms' capacities to maintain some level of operability during strikes. >>
I agree, new technology does make limp along functioning pretty long winded, and that is in fact what happened in 1989. By the time we got back after 17 weeks, management had managed to maintain enough equipment to keep a majority of their customers happy. However, things are different now -- companies are much more short fused when it comes to interruptions in service because there are so many local alternatives out there..........
>> One more question. How do you think the settlement will affect the future
of "partnership schemes" within the company? It seems Morty is big on this
stuff, particularly when he can find an accommodating partner in management.
Will the new contract reinvigorate this thrust, leading some workers to
conclude that management is not all that bad or deserves a greater level of
cooperation in light of the generally favorable terms of the settlement? Or
will selling these schemes be more difficult in light of the confrontation
and clear demarcation of interests illuminated by the strike?>>
I assume you are talking about Morty Bahr, pres of District One... Morty may be big on these things, but these partnership schemes have largely proven to be failures in the past, and, by and large, have not been instituted in the heart of the technical areas: carrier (where I am), switching, installation/repair, frame, or splicing. Most of these management/nonmanagement (or union if you wish) partnership or co-managed operations have been in places where the work is mainly done at desks--network operations, a few test centers. Generally these projects failed dismally, and the opinions as to why they failed probably number as large as the number of participants -- there is no one generalized opinion as to why. A good friend of mine who is now a retired trunk assignor was involved in one of these things before she retired. The impression I got from her, AND the second line manager who I chit chat with from time to time AND the shop steward was that the experiment failed: ** because they are poorly concieved. Management apparently held meetings with union members on the work, but then followed old style work rules, and as soon as the work got behind, they went back to old methods. ** while some offices tried to institute sharing of work schemes, the corporate designated measurement systems did not work in a democratic system where the managers were still measured by the old top down style, **the new "super tech" title where people are supposed to be expert at both inside and outside work failed miserably in all the large urban areas, mainly because of transportation and multiple vendor problems -- ie, each carrier has multiple vendors and it is impossible for most people to know both inside and outside work, and getting to and from central office eq and the customer proved impossibly time consuming. Further, the super techs are making a little more money, AND do the same jobs as regular techs because the original conception failed in all but the smallest towns, so the regular techs (who are still the vast majority) have a real bad attitude about working side by side at the same job with someone making more money. So you get stuff like: "gee, can you help me__________?" "Fuck you, you're the super tech."
As to trusting management, even management doesn't trust management. This morning I got to confab with a much of the day tour (since I stayed over to work on troubles) and the main response I heard about the contract was: "Well, it looks good on paper, but Bell Atlantic doesn't honor contracts." And, to tell the truth, there were a whole bunch of contractors in the building today......
Finally, after the 1989 contract, many, many managers were pushed out the door. It is pretty well known that Bell Atlantic South has almost double the ratio of managers to non-managers as Bell Atlantic North (the old nynex area). The generalized feeling these days is that NYNEX managers are going to be pushed out in the next year and Bell South managers will be brought in. Given this disillusionment on the part of managers, they have no interest in partnership with the craft, in fact, many of them have asked to go back to craft and been denied, and almost100% of craft in NYC who have been asked for management in the last year have said no (there are a few exceptions, but these are rare). In short, no one sees management as a desireable or respectable place to be these days, hence no interest in partnering up. maggie coleman mscoleman at aol.com