Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
We are the 99 percent

Save Jobs, Occupy AT&T in Atlanta!

Posted 12 years ago on Feb. 13, 2012, 5:37 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt


Earlier today, Occupy Atlanta, Atlanta Jobs with Justice, Communication Workers of America, and AFSC began occupying the AT&T Headquarters in Atlanta "and are refusing to leave until every single job cut is rescinded." Simultaneously, an occupation with tents is being set up outside of the building. A General Assembly will be held at 7pm EST at 675 West Peachtree St!

There will also be a rally outside the building tomorrow, so be sure to show support. For live updates, follow #occupyatt on Twitter!

via Jobs With Justice:

Multinational corporations like AT&T have been undermining workers standards of living for decades. If we stand up for union jobs with AT&T we can stand up for a future where there's enough for everyone, a future that creates space for all of us to thrive. Lift up the South, lift up this nation.

Let's not get it twisted. There's enough resources to go around. The crisis isn't about resources. It's about economic priorities. It's time that the 99% stand up to the unprecedented wealth consolidation that has been robbing our communities. Together we can take these 740 jobs off the chopping block. Let this action be the beginning of a movement to put human need above corporate greed in a very real, tangible way.



Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 12 years ago

This is ridiculous! If the CEO takes home $1 million instead of $27 million for last year, then 540 of these jobs can be saved (assuming that each job is paying $50,000 per year after benefits, etc.)

[-] 4 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

He was not paid $27 million, his compensation was $27 million. His actual pay was $7 million, which is still insane obviously. The other $20 million was likely in the form of stock options which don't really cost the company any money, but rather dilutes the other outstanding shares a bit when they vest.

[-] 1 points by freedomanddemocracy (72) 12 years ago

What difference does it make, actual pay or stock options, they both contribute to his total wealth and in the end, the stocks give him tax breaks and a chance to make millions more in the future. His pay is 27million,plus.............millions more, all at the expense of it's laid off workers, most likely outsourced to India.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

TechJunkie is right. Giving a CEO a boatload of stock options is the best way to guarantee that he will do what he thinks is best for the company.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 12 years ago

Stock options are only worth anything if the company that you're running grows. Creates jobs.

Steve Jobs took a $1/year salary. He made his money by having his fortunes tied to the company's fortunes. Which means that if he didn't create jobs, then he didn't get paid.

[-] 1 points by DrKeith (1) 12 years ago

Well if that's true than how come he thinks its a good idea to lay off 740 people? I don't think that hiring Americans is in the intrest of profits.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

I wouldn't mind having $20 million in stock options. Must be nice.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

Yeah I know, I would be all over one of those new Acura NSXs.

[-] 1 points by zorbaka2 (61) 12 years ago

also the taxes he has to pay are likely to be less. Not enough to rob the business, they don't want to pay taxes on the un-earned pay.

[-] 4 points by zorbaka2 (61) 12 years ago

You got my attention. I worked for at&t for 30 years. I left the union to help start cellular in kentucky. They gave me a promise that my benefits would stay intact. Along with a letter stating it. When it came time to retire in 1999, this promise was broken as they slashed my health benefits. This amounted to a big portion of retirement. The amount of retirement pay was 1100.00 a month. It started with a small co-payment. Each year thereafter, more and more of the cost were transferred to me. I went to 3 lawyers and was told they can do whatever they want. This 27,000,000.00 pay is a perfect example of what is happening to this country. I support your efforts in this. Maybe your efforts will eventually make the public aware that 99.9% of the rest of the working people are in for this same thing eventually if something is not changed drastically.

[-] 5 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

This should be the reason for protest. I can't see forcing a company to keep workers they don't need. But I can't see how they are allowed to get out of a deal struck with employees. If you make a contract, you should honor it. If you make a contract and part of that contract is wording that makes the contract worthless down the road, that is a con and should land someone in prison just like any other con.

[-] 3 points by primitivetimes (73) 12 years ago

Not much into this action. We're protesting them, while at the same time saying we want to work for them? Forget AT&T. Its only concern is profits. Telling them to "be nicer" to us is like telling a virus to stop spreading. Its only reason for being is to expand.

Asking for more "jobs" is still buying into the flawed economic premise which does not serve the 99%. Occupy isn't about begging for a bigger piece of the pie from our rulers, it's about making our own pie.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

Where does it say they are asking for MORE jobs? I read that they are asking that those who are being told they will be laid off get to KEEP their jobs. That is quite different.... especially since the company just made record profits and the CEO is rolling in cash and company stock.

[-] 1 points by primitivetimes (73) 12 years ago

For the purpose of the point I was making, asking for more jobs or asking to keep jobs is the same thing. All I'm saying is, it's a bit inconsistent to be saying "screw AT&T" while at the same time saying "hey, we want to work for you." I'm saying, really, screw AT&T. We know what they're about, they're about profits and power consolidation, not people. Why should we expect them to take any interest in our well-being? Why are we depending on them to improve our lives? If we do that, we're still conceding to the premise that they are the ones in charge and we're just scrambling for whatever crumbs they care to throw our way. Occupy isn't about that. It's about creating an entirely new system by the 99% with 99% values. So instead of asking for concessions from the 1%, lets create our own economy and businesses i.e. worker co-ops, that are run with the genuine intention of improving the lives of their employees and communities. This is not a pipe dream, it would work, it just takes people waking up to this possibility, because most of us are not greedy corporatists. We've just been duped into thinking we have to have a greed based economy because "greed is natural," when in reality, it isn't (in my opinion).

[-] 3 points by truegangsteroflove (5) 12 years ago

I have phone and Internet service with AT&T. It is a terrible company. They raise the amount they charge nearly every month, and are dishonest. Beware if they call you with an offer. Their customer service is a joke - right there in Atlanta. It was (is) pretty obvious that the workers were (are) under pressure to give bad service and repeat scripted answers. AT&T was broken up, finalized in 1982. Maybe this should happen again.

[-] 3 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

I have AT&T U-Verse for internet at home (not much other choice in my area..... as I detest Comcast), and it took them about a month or more to hook it up when I first moved back in the summer. I called the other day to ask about my bill, and I was on hold for about 15 minutes before I hung up. No one ever answered the phone. That company has the WORST customer service out there.


[-] 3 points by thelightofthenorthstar (4) from Warren, ME 12 years ago

Save the world from predatory banksters! Repeal the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 and The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999! Reinstate Gall-Steagall and return the world to economic stability and sanity. Thelightofthenorthstar.com

[-] 3 points by ourmanintokyo (3) 12 years ago

One meme that could accomplish nearly all your goals and strike right to the heart of matters:

Maximum wage law.

Start lobbying Congress. Easy to remember, easy to sell. Both liberals and conservatives can rally behind that idea.

Just remember it was my idea. :-)

love and deep respect, Eric A. Smith Tokyo http://getonthepath.blogspot.com/

[-] 2 points by icfmike (173) 12 years ago

right, since there is a minimum wage, there should be a maximum...

[-] 3 points by Justice4all (133) 12 years ago

Rick Santorums campaign song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

Forget about creating jobs and helping the less fortunate--this is the Republican Parties main running theme in life. Hard to see why things are so f'd up!!

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Ma bells back. fatter and meaner than ever before.

Plus your bills just keep going up, and NO bell labs to do basic research.

[-] 2 points by Coldinflorida (50) 12 years ago

I have a contract with AT&T wireless for my iPhone. ... what should I do

[-] 1 points by freedomanddemocracy (72) 12 years ago

Finish with the contract, or pay the penalties to switch, either way they screw you. If you pay them off, and file a protest letter stating why, and thousands or millions do the same, it will send them a message that their customers do not support their militant political views. The only things that these idiots understand is the power of money, and if enough people tell them that it is not ok to support exremist right-wing candidates, then they will finally get the message and stop!

[-] 2 points by blinxwang (25) from Johns Creek, GA 12 years ago

Screw AT&T, their horrible customer service, their willingness to scam you at every opportunity, and their ridiculous overcharging on a pitiful network. In fact, this applies to every Telco in the US.

[-] 2 points by Justice4all (133) 12 years ago

Since Romney is so concerned about he President borrowing money, why doest he offer to give half of his salary to help the cause? Not like he still wont be nausiagtingly rich regardless. What am I saying, hes a Republican--not as if he would care about real Americans, only his vulture buddies who need more money for their 5 extra vacation homes. Corporate corrupt capitalists 18,000,000 average Americans 0--the game never changes. When will these guys ever have to face justice with some serious jail time?? Instead they become leaders that we sorely do not need!!

[-] 2 points by zorbaka2 (61) 12 years ago

I really believe they could get a better ceo for one tenth what this one is paid.

[-] 2 points by boxman (7) from Prospect, KY 12 years ago

Why is occupy's agenda looking more and more like union politics? There is a lot of emotional propaganda in the union's take on this. AT&T had a record quarterly loss last quarter (6.7 billion). If you follow the union's logic that says they have to keep people when they make money, then they should be laying off a whole lot of people after last quarter. The layoffs are mostly the results of technology replacing people. People simply aren't needed to do certain tasks anymore. Also AT&T asked for voluntary retirements with incentives before resorting to layoffs.

This kind of protest only serves to support the idea that occupy is merely a union mouthpiece interested in maintaining the status quo and union membership and not a thoughtful, progressive group thinking about how to change the system. Protesting jobs that are obsoleted by technology is fruitless.

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

They made record profits in 2011. It's cumulative.... not what happens in only one quarter.


[-] 2 points by PatrickOxOethafulm (35) 12 years ago

I love you guys, keep up the good work. I hope ill be free (not in school or work) soon to join you all once again. I have taken the train from long island about 7 times to the city to join you all <33333 listen to your hearts

[-] 2 points by Bighead1883 (285) 12 years ago

Its a similar story in Australia,Alcoa may close in Geelong-600 jobs.ANZ Bank-1000 jobs.Westpac Bank between 500 @ 600 jobs.Windfall profits are still being made though.But people talk and nobody acts.Look at buy nothing day,riot at Walmart to purchase cheap Chinese games etc.Absolutely zilch happened here.Corporations only listen to the bottom line,if its hurt they act.They know no one will boycott them,sheez,theyre monopolizing it all. Either support your unions or what`s left of them will go the same way as the Dodo,and save your anger for the election.

[-] 1 points by economicallydiscardedcitizen (761) 12 years ago

You might want to share that info. at www.dailyjobcuts.com if it isn't posted there already. So many layoffs continue monthly en masse.

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5909) 12 years ago

AT&T is a private for profit bussiness that can award it's CEO with however much money as is desired and lay off as many people as desired. It's not YOUR job if you're not working for YOURSELF. If someone else is providing it for you then he who giveth shall ever remain he who taketh away. Businesses are in business to make money, not to provide jobs. They're about profit, not people. People need to start seriously organizing cooperative businesses of all kinds if they truly want to provide an alternative to the exploitative whims of the corporate world. Otherwise, complain and protest all you want but everything will ever remain the same. Get together to go into business for yourself rather than remain the helpless victims of them. After all, if you don't care to do it for yourself, no one else will.

[-] 2 points by ahbregman (18) 12 years ago

But am I mistaken in the thought that if we take business away from those companies which benefit their CEO's and management so wholly while cutting as much as possible, whenever possible then we can make some impact, just theoretical but if two million folks take their business elsewhere we can use our collective voice to let those who "taketh away" know what is going to work for the future of this country. And though I believe completely in religious freedom, using dogmatic statements to make a point about the inequalities inherent in our systems of economy and politics is ignorant to the real truths behind these inequalities. I agree there is little that can be directly forced through protest in cases of specific episodes of economic inequality, BUT, we have got to show that this is not the way of a healthy, peaceful and prospering civilization.

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5909) 12 years ago

Is AT&T the only company to engage in these practices or is it merely the media flavor of the moment? Where will two million people take their business that's not also engaged in the same practices? What will happen to other jobs at AT&T when business is down due to two million people taking their business elsewhere? It's a catch 22. Taking business away from AT&T to protest the jobs taken away only results in more jobs being taken away. Protest without positive action is virtually meaningless. Big businesses will always be able to weather the storms of protest as long as they are the only game in town. It will only be when an alternative arises that threatens big business with competition that big business will begin to take protests seriously.

[-] 2 points by MachineShopHippie (216) from Louisville, KY 12 years ago

I wouldn't be the CEO of AT&T for a year for one million. Seriously, it's not enough money for the stress and liability involved. What I WOULD happily do for a year is be a lobbyist for AT&T, making hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to convince politicians to ignore that monopoly forming in the corner.

Attacking CEO compensation isn't going to get us anywhere, and it doesn't really speak to the ethics of the company for paying their CEO well during a time of company expansion and record profits. He should be well compensated, and it isn't like running a giant communications company is the same level of skill or stress as running your local neighborhood dry cleaners. What he does is probably worth that 27M.

Why not actually make a fuss about the really immoral stuff the company does, like enlist strategically placed people at non-profits to appeal to the legislature on your behalf so you can violate current anti-trust laws designed to protect the average consumer? Yeah, that's pretty sneaky. Why not talk about the 20M they spent on lobbying efforts in 2011?


[-] 2 points by fairness33 (6) 12 years ago

Starting with the CEO, and, by extension, the Board of Directors, is ABSOLUTELY where you need to start. They control all aspects of the company. It is now becoming well known that during the 1950's the average large company CEO was making 25-50x the average worker, ok...thats not too bad, by 1970, it was around 100x, by 1980 it was 200x and by the time of the Global Credit Crisis it was at an ASTOUNDING 500+ the average employee!! Why??, simple because this is all about power,greed,control and entitlement by the CEO and officers and similar GLOBAL ELITES, promoted by compensation consultants and a structure of the business model, THAT THEY SET UP. As for CEO stress..ARE YOU KIDDING ME. unless they have had strokes or heart attacks due to the "rich man's diet", they have minimal to NO stress as compared to the average working stiff. When was the last time you saw a CEO of a major company leave/step down because of a nervous breakdown, anxiety attack, depression. The answer is you haven't. They have absolute power and control of the firm and also are tightly integrated via global organizations such as the Bilderberg Group, Trialateral Commission, RIIA, CFR etc, I could go on and on and on. By the way, you want to be a well paid lobbyist. Let me ask you a question: who do you think pays those lobby firms, who then pay the lobbysts who then influence the "puppet" politicians?? And who do you think approves/signs off on the "really immoral stuff" you mention?? They are today's equivalents of Kings and Queens and some have actually come out and said "They are doing God's work" (will see about that comment) and have largely remained off the public's radar screen by design, which has changed only in the last several years as the global middle class wake up and become enlightened. Do yourself a favor and don't take my word for it, go do you own homework. I would start with the Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, The Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). I suggest some key books: The True Story of the Bilderberg Group, The Creature from Jekyl Island, Through Them All Out and one that I just got called: Greedy Bastards. Good luck becoming enlightened!!!

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

actually it just depends on whether those 740 were bashing the OWS before this. if they were.. then HA HA HA. now they don't have a job!

[-] 1 points by HankR (1) 12 years ago

Sorry but I have just read the Occupy AT&T piece and in my opinion this is not right, attacking a company because its firing workers? What do you want them to do? take the salaries of the CEO and high executives and distribute it to all the workers? Dont get me wrong I completely support the Occupy Wallstreet movement but not like this, we should be protesting against corporatism, against the Fed, against strong centralized government. I mean what do you want, prohibit companies from firing workers, raise the minimum salary, more and more regulatory intervention in the economy? This is exactly what got us in this mess.

The Occupy movement should be about much larger things, if we start going down this road the movemnet will lose its true meaning and we won't solve the real problem.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

the workers should get a years compensation in stock ownership

[-] 1 points by freedomanddemocracy (72) 12 years ago

AT&T not only pays their CEO's extravagant amounts of money at the expense of their workers, but they also pour millions into the Super PAC's of right-wing extremists like Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and others. They are using money made from high-priced services to finance the campaigns of these right-wing extremists on the backs of it's workers and it's customers! I recently changed to AT&T and just found out that this company is not only laying off thousands of it's workers, but also increasing the salaries of it's CEO's and giving millions to causes I don't support! As soon as my so-called specials and bundles are expired, I am switching to another company that doesn't use my money to support extremist candidates and views I do not support!!

[-] 0 points by PretendHitGirI (13) 12 years ago

Good luck with that. What you mention i$ the long accepted and $tanding American Way.


[-] 1 points by Bayraba (24) 12 years ago

Be happy if you lose your job. Then you are finally free to do what you want.

[-] 1 points by therising (6643) 12 years ago

Stay strong!

[-] 1 points by Mark01 (82) 12 years ago

fight for our jobs

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 12 years ago

May of lost jobs due to computers taking their jobs we should know all the facts first

[-] 3 points by sufinaga (513) 12 years ago

yes it is the silicon chip the STONE CUT OUT WITHOUT HANDS that is destroying the jobs. the end of wage slavery. we demand a LIVING ALLOWANCE FOR ALL. then let them be free to use their entrepreneurial skills to make more money and revitalise the economy.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 12 years ago

Do you even know what a silicon wafer is or how its made?

and by living allowance for all you must of loved the USSR

[-] 0 points by sufinaga (513) 12 years ago

yes it is etched with acid. stop your macarthur communist BS. social living is the best. that's what our community demonstrates in truth. you are another deluded brainwashed ENEMY of our community. see COMM UNITY. gettit????

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 12 years ago

first the manufacturing is more complicated than that

no im all for community ,but a business is a business meaning they have to make a profit to survive and since we dont know the books of ATT. they could be about to invest into something that will cost them a lot of money or they could of found out that having that many workers is just not beneficial to them. The community doesn't get to decided private matters this is a private one. No one can force them to do anything

[-] 3 points by primitivetimes (73) 12 years ago

Well if someone's private matters negatively effect the community or the world or the environment, etc., then I think the community should get to decide private matters. If a private company buys politicians to change the rules so they're favorable to them and exploitative of their workers, that type of behavior isn't entirely private. Ultimately, the community should make laws/decisions that are beneficial to them, not hold stubbornly to some romanticized ideology regardless of whether or not that ideology produces good results.

[-] 1 points by sufinaga (513) 12 years ago

of course! we must examine the corrupt accumulation of wealth and land and redistribute it to the poor. they cannot hide their wealth while the poor starve and freeze. money and land can never be private. we want it all back.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 12 years ago

if they negatively affect the community in a non normal way yes regulations should be put in place to stop them.

this is sad but layoffs do happen and this case it in this part of the country again we don't know the whole story and until we do we should not make judgement on it. Also we can just force companies to hire people otherwise we would have people not certified for the job on the job .

[-] 0 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

"if they negatively affect the community in a non normal way.... "

What the hell is a "non-normal way"??? Do you think the BP oil spill was affecting the environment, people, animals, etc. in a "normal way" or a "non-normal Way"????

[-] 0 points by primitivetimes (73) 12 years ago

Ok well then U.S. companies should end all our relations with Chinese manufacturers who are using slave labor to make our products. Those people are definitely being affected in a negative way. And here too. Most low skilled workers don't make enough to live on, have horrible working conditions, and have no say in what goes on. I'd say that negatively affects the community, but people have come to accept it because it has become normal and they have enough things to deal with in their own lives to care about it too much.

But for the record, I'm not saying that AT&T should be forced by the government to not layoff people. I don't think that's the answer. I do think there should be much stronger rules with regards to worker rights that corporations would have to abide by. If that makes it so a CEO has to settle for making millions instead of 100s of millions, that's ok. The idea is to have a system which works for everyone, not just business people.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 12 years ago

again though as a the United States we can not put a cap on salaries its not constitutional its not freedom

also you shouldnt feel bad about sweat shops in 3rd world countries they are making more money a day than they would in month. Then also look at the other options they have i really have a good video on this please watch


[-] 1 points by primitivetimes (73) 12 years ago

I understand that's the way it is now and that's your view, I just disagree. The constitution is great, but I don't believe in just blindly supporting a document and suspending all regard for good judgement and awareness of present circumstances. The constitution was written a long time ago, it must evolve as humanity evolves. I'm more interested in a system which leads to the most prosperity for most people, not dogma or blind ideology.

That video is wrong on so many levels, I can't possibly get into it all here. We should defend sweatshops cause they're better than being thrown out on the street? So we're just powerless to do anything about it? What in the world is creating this horrible state of affairs for those countries, where everyday people only have horrible options, or even more horrible options? And this guy is saying the solution is to have EVEN MORE economic freedom? So companies can pay people even less, work them even more, and make even more profits? That's economic freedom, isn't it? Hmm, I wonder what motive that guy has for advocating for "economic freedom"? It certainly looks like he's benefiting from it. I wonder if he'd feel any different if he had to work a few days at Foxconn? I'm sure you know about Foxconn, but go ahead and google it if you want to learn about how great all the workers there have it.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 12 years ago

sorry but the constitution is here to stay and it is above the law because it is the father of law. again putting salary caps or forcing people to earn on a certain amount is not fair because that easily could be turn into evil things like you father made $100,000 so you shall not make more than $10,000

Like right now im studying to be an mechanical engineer at one of the best universities in the world. I easily put in 80 hours a week into my studying so i feel that i should be compensated for these long hours and i will be once i graduate and get a job. And the potential for me is really high that i could make potentially infinity since there is no end to what i can do. So putting a salary cap on my degree is a slap to the face.

now to the sweatshops > street-bum its a fact and these countries will develop then the sweatshop leaves.

If people voluntarily work there i have no problem with them

economic freedom means more free will to do what we want and to buy what we want. so yes its good to have economic freedom☺

or we could get rid of all useless employees and just replace them with robots and let them starve to death but im gonna go with no starving children

foxconn will blow over and the people who work there will make it a better place it will happen it happened it The US and the UK

also your saying capitalism is bad because free markets are bad but look at china they are moving away from sweatshops and have a better style of living do to a "free market" (the government still controls some) soon they will have something they never had before a middle class which is amazing

long live the free market

[-] 1 points by primitivetimes (73) 12 years ago

That's great that you're getting your education. You should be compensated for your hard work. But the work and long hours that others are putting in count also, and should be compensated as well. Should they make as much as someone more educated? No. But I think most people who aren't clinging stubbornly to free market ideology would agree that someone who works 8 hours a day, 5 days a week should at least make enough to cover the basic expenses of life and be able to put away some for retirement. No matter how low skilled the job is, if someone is putting the huge majority of their waking hours into performing a service for someone else, they should at least be able to support a decent life in their remaining free time, don't you think? Just because they didn't go to college(maybe they couldn't afford it, or didn't want to go into debt, since college is also now a for-profit enterprise), doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to support themselves if they're willing to work. After all, there would be no Donald Trumps or Bill Gates without the workers under them, right? They would not have been able to realize their vision without their employees. They and their companies are every bit as dependent on the workers under them as the workers are dependent on them. Their work matters, and they should be valued and respected.

Saying that as these countries develop, sweatshops will disappear- that's not good enough. Sweatshops are an injustice and a human rights issue. Saying "Oh, in 10 years sweatshops will be phased out and everything will be ok" does not help the person in the sweatshop now. With segregation, we realized it was wrong, and we did something about it then. Like other forms of slavery, human trafficking, child prostitution, etc.- these things should not occur. If you are admitting that these things are bad, which it sounds like you are, it is not enough to sit back and say "Well, it'll get better as China's economy develops." You would not be saying that if you were in the sweatshop right now.

Working in a sweatshop is not voluntary. When your choice is either work in one sweatshop, or another sweatshop, or scavenging on the street, that is not a choice. If the entire economic system is administered by a privileged class, which sets the rules so the system is favorable to them only, so they can do crazy things like make it so the only option people have is to work in sweatshops, that is not a choice. Just because someone is not physically holding a gun to someone's head does not mean there is a choice in the matter.

As for replacing employees with robots, that brings up a very important point. Isn't it strange that we have an economic system where technological advancement is actually a BAD thing, because it results in lost jobs? If we want to create jobs, why don't we just have people manning the elevators like we did 50 years ago? Shouldn't a technological advancement benefit society, rather than just the CEO? But since we have a system that is only driven by mindless profit and consumption rather than actual human needs, the only thing a technological advancement like this does is allow a CEO to lay off employees, cut costs and increase profits. This topic is much too large to get into here but I invite you to reflect and think seriously about it.

I hope you're right about Foxconn blowing over, though you are contradicting yourself if you say you would like it to disappear. You are defending sweatshops and the rights of businesses to have them, but now you're saying that "the people" will make it a better place. Surely you understand, if the people rise up and make sweatshops a thing of the past, it will be in spite of the free market, not because of it. I respect your effort at trying to justify the position you've chosen to identify with and feel you have to defend, but your views are not entirely coherent. If you really want to have a discussion about these matters, lets be serious about it and make a real effort at furthering our understanding and coming to the best conclusion about what's best for the world, rather than just trying to win an argument.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 12 years ago

Im glad im getting a college education. I go to a very good school its ranked number in the 10 ten in the world for what im getting which is Mechanical Engineering. This is key though getting degrees that will have a job market in the future. im happy that my work will eventually be awarded. i will have an internship this summer where i will be working 8-12 hours a day and six days a week.

To the advancement of technology and work places we will never stop getting rid of workers, because the consumer demands a higher quality product. we can do that better with a robot hand than a human hand it is a sad but true fact. since when will build a product only 1 of 10,000,000 can have an error. i will be going into manufacturing and i know that workers will be loss but i have a goal and that is to build high quality products with as much capital that is given to me. factories are going to change big time we at the present moment have the power to print, yes print, car engines and grow aluminum on the microscope level. These will bring out a product that is very high quality and will be cleaner and better for the planet. Even with these advances we will need workers and workers need managers it s a cycle that will always be there. I learned that in a leadership class that even though a worker can manage they eventually will fall under pressure it happens all the time. So we have managers take care of the legal stuff so the worker can get back to doing what ever they do best.

that was a very interesting read but i still dont think you know what a free market is. The people who work in these sweatshops will eventually be able to do something once money has been put in their system and once money is put in their system they will be able to have more service type jobs and maybe better factory jobs. its a very delicate system but we can not force a system on a place just because we say its better. They have to do that for themselves otherwise we could have a chaotic system that blows it self up. Things take time and my generation needs to realize this the and not everyone can live in a perfect society we need people to be on the bottom. Yes that sounds evil but it is the truth we need repairmen trash men, janitors and many other jobs that people don't want.

The idea about sweatshops is that they will either form a union or they will find away to make things better. im thankful we have a regulating government that is more stable than where these sweatshops are located. The workers will do something that this country did over hundred years ago and they will have strikes and sit in and eventually it will happen. But we can not force a neither a country or company to stop this practice it is not in our span of control only theirs and until 1 of the 3 steps up we will let it continue it has to continue.

People often complain about the price of living but also dont put in the amount of money it takes to build something. With this comes the price of a product. technology will drive these prices down. It is up to you to make sure you are well suited for this technology world because it is moving fast and it will leave with out you if do not ready yourself.

also my whole solution to the economy is a space elevator provide a new way to get into space cheaper more efficient will provide millions of jobs with all the new workers and technology put into it also it will need to be maintained and that will provide many jobs and a new economy where ever it is put my suggestion would be Texas or Utah.

technology is a scary thing and it can be used for both good and evil as an engineer im proud to say that we will be using it to benefit mankind

[-] 1 points by primitivetimes (73) 12 years ago

A lot of your response here is just telling me the way it is and how our system works. That’s not the issue. The issue is whether or not this system is the best one for humanity - for our present situation and future development. Apparently you think the present state of affairs in the world is acceptable and it doesn’t look like I’ll be able to convince you otherwise, and likewise, you are not convincing me of the justness of the system we have currently.

You seem content with just letting the free market dictate everything, and don’t seem too interested in the actual results. The free market is a nice concept, but ultimately, the whole reason we have a free market, supposedly, is because we think it’s the best system for achieving the most human prosperity in the world, right? OK, but what if things go wrong? To me, if we see an injustice, like sweatshops, it’s not enough to just close our eyes and say “Just let the free market work itself out. In a few years everything will be OK.” That’s not good enough for me.

Same with technology. The whole purpose of technology is to improve our lives, right? Well, if the cost of that is enslaving a huge portion of the human population, that sort of defeats the purpose. It doesn’t really matter if we have 3D TVs and fancy cell phones if it requires the exploitation of a majority of the human population (and I’m not just talking about sweatshop workers here, most 9-5 workers with a set wage and no decision making power are being exploited in my opinion, but that probably requires further explanation for you which I don’t have time to do here.)

You say you know that workers will be lost, but you have a goal to build a high quality product with whatever capital you have. Aha! It’s good we established that. So you acknowledge that the system we have now is not about human welfare, it’s about consumption and profits. In my view, you have lost the plot. Again, isn’t the whole point of all of this – technology, products, free market, etc. – that it improves humanity? If it’s not, what the heck is the point? But now, we’ve become more concerned about cutting costs, profits, etc. Humans themselves have become an afterthought. We serve the economy. The economy doesn’t serve us.

An example of this, which I mentioned previously, is that because of our outdated economic system, technological advancement is a bad thing. If we could automate the entire production process, that SHOULD be a good thing, because it would allow us to work less or focus on other things. But because we have a system that depends on endless profits and wage for income, this advancement results in “lost jobs” and poverty. This alone should be a clue to you that something is very wrong with our priorities. I understand most people don’t even think about things in this way, which is exactly what the people in control want. Most people are too busy working, maintaining the system which doesn’t serve them, educating themselves to maintain this corrupt system in universities which are also owned by the elite, and in their free time, consuming the filtered messages of the airwaves, also owned by the elite. It takes a lot of work and determination to expose yourself to alternative messages and think independently.

I agree that we need repairmen, trash men and janitors, and for that matter, sweatshop workers. What in the world would we do without them? So, since we value and need their work, we should at least pay them enough to live on, don’t you think? If you choose to classify those people as “on the bottom” of society, even though you are in fact dependent on them, that’s your business, but it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be paid a fair wage that allows them to live a life of dignity. And we don’t need managers. Actually, we do need managers, but we don’t need CEOs. Look to worker co-ops as the new model of the future, where the workers themselves take on more responsibility for management, and thus, receive more of the profits from their labor. Think of everything it takes to make an iPod- the engineer, scientist, designer, miner, assembler. Those people don’t make millions of dollars and would be better off in a worker co-op system. The CEO himself does nothing to actually produce the product! He mainly just exploits others and hoards profits from their labor, which is only able to happen because we have a system dependent on rampant growth rather than human needs. It just takes people waking up to this fact and seeing through the propaganda to make a better system.

You say we shouldn’t force a system on another country just because we say it’s better. You’re right about that. However, we can choose not to do business with them. American CEOs could choose to not outsource jobs and produce their products in the U.S., pay their employees fair wages, and give them humane working conditions. Sure, the CEOs would have to settle for making 100s of millions instead of billions, but that’s OK, our free market system shouldn’t depend on exploitation. Profits should be made honestly. One more time, the whole point of the free market, supposedly, is because it’s best for everyone, right? So why are we so focused on protecting the rights of CEOs to do whatever they can do to make as much money as possible, but we don’t care about the rights of workers? Something about that just isn’t right.

Lastly, you’re contradicting yourself again when you seem to support the idea that sweatshop workers could form a union or strike. By saying this, you are admitting that the conditions there are unacceptable, but you also defend the rights of corporations to reap the benefits of their labor. Again, I agree with you that we can’t impose our values on another country and make them stop having sweatshops. We can, however, have our own standards and stop doing business with them, but we don’t, because we value profits over people. How about if it was a full-on death camp? If someone doesn’t assemble 20 iPhones in an hour, they’re dead! Wages would be even less, and CEOs would make even more profits! Would we still do business with them? Would we still say that we have to just wait for their economy to develop so conditions improve?

Sorry for such a long response, but I appreciate the opportunity to have these types of exchanges. I really care about what’s best for everyone, so I take these issues very seriously, and I assume you do also.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 12 years ago

i think we have the best system that we could have the other systems just dont have the freedom that we have now. Maybe some day someone will invent a new system but as a see it there is no reason to.

i never contradicted myself and yes the work conditions are unacceptable but considering most people in lets say Bangladesh have dirt floors and horrible living conditions to us doesn't mean that they mind them. Just because we think it sucks doesn't mean that they think it is the worst thing in the world. when the mean salary of the country is 0.57 a hour that sounds horrible to us but not to them. we could just stop doing business with them but then all those people lose their jobs their economy goes to the floor.

We still need CEO's they do a lot of work other than just sit at their desk and people need to realize this they are like a general manager that helps coordinate everything they do so much more than what we think. We need them and they need us its a circle and it for ever will be. i also plan on being a CEO some day and im going to get there though hard work and determination

[-] 3 points by sufinaga (513) 12 years ago

all criminals want to keep their business PRIVATE!

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 12 years ago

since you hate privacy i suggest you learn to open your home because im going to go sleep on your couch and eat your food since you love being public then if you deny me im because its your private house im going to call you a criminal.

[-] 2 points by primitivetimes (73) 12 years ago

Hey Daniel, it's not letting me respond below your comment, so I'm responding here. Guess we're at our limit!

Yes, you are contradicting yourself, because you're acknowledging the working conditions are unacceptable, but you're also defending them and saying there's no reason to invent a new system. So either you're contradicting yourself, or you're simply exposing yourself as someone who doesn't care, and that's understandable. Most people don't care. Like you, they're too busy with their own lives to worry too much about the working conditions of their neighbors or people halfway around the world. That's the point of the system- keep people too busy to make real change.

Having dirt floors is not the same as having horrible working conditions. I agree with you that we can't assume people aren't happy just because they don't have nice houses like we do. In fact, many studies have been done that show how poorer countries or tribal communities are in many cases much happier and have much better statistics than we do in things like disease, mental illness, suicides, etc. But working conditions is a different matter. If people are being exploited, we can stop doing business with the companies that do the exploiting and force them to change. It is incredibly shortsighted of you to simply point to "lost jobs," as a reason why we should continue doing business with these companies. Here we have people who are ENSLAVED- working their entire waking hours to benefit someone else, not receiving any of the fruits of their labor, with no possibility of upward mobility. And you think it has to stay that way simply to avoid an economic collapse? That is the old line of reasoning and it's not working anymore. If an economy depends on exploitation, we need to rethink the whole thing, not continue to perpetuate it by claiming the alternative will be even worse. We can indeed invent a better system. A lot of times people assume the only alternative to capitalism is communism, but how about something new? None of those previous systems existed until we invented them, so why do we think they are the only options now? Humanity evolves. It's about learning from our mistakes, actually caring about what's best, and finding a new way forward.

The only reason we "need" CEOs is because we have an economic system that depends on endless profits without regard to human needs or the environment, so yes, in that system, we need CEOs, even though the only ones who truly benefit from that system are the CEOs and other elites at the top. If we had a system that was actually based on human needs and the welfare of the majority of the people, we would not need CEOs, because the motive would no longer be rampant growth and maximizing profits, it would be the actual prosperity of the people. That may seem unrealistic, and right now, it is, because the 1% has effectively brainwashed people into thinking the world can't be any other way. But if people wake up, which they are starting to do, we could have a better system, because in reality, most people are NOT greedy power hungry people. Most people just want to make an honest living and contribute, and they would welcome a system that is designed for them.

Good luck being a CEO. Hopefully you are doing it because you really do want to contribute something to the world to make it a better place, and remember, if you get there, it will only be because of the hard work and determination of all the workers under you, as well as your own, so be sure to treat them well.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 12 years ago

well i like this post

i agree with those ideas if the work put in has a reward instead of just more work. That is why i like america system of advance in the work place and rewards for a good job of work not with just pay but benefits too.

I agree we need a re invented system that will be regulated but not over regulated and free but not anarchy free. I feel like this is what i was trying to say and that we need to move towards that. we will move to this system naturally and it will be a good.

I dont want to be CEO to make money that is a small perk and it is not like i wont refuse my pay ill just do what my family does now and donate to certain causes and help out random people. In my eyes i want to be one because i have great ideas that are beneficial to all of us. When i am CEO of some place i will recognize all people of my business because that is the right thing to do.

i notice even now that i am the only person who thanks the workers at my university or helps random strangers. I encourage this in my every day life

there is a lot more i want to say but i cannot put them into words.

[-] 1 points by primitivetimes (73) 12 years ago

Great, glad to hear that. CEOs are supposed to improve the world, it has just gotten out of balance the last 30 years. If you can be part of changing that trend by respecting your employees and paying them well, that would make a big difference. Good luck.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 12 years ago

thank you

[-] 1 points by sufinaga (513) 12 years ago

you are an ENEMY of our movement. a corporation is not a person and can have no privacy. an individual is entitled to personal privacy. the question is where did your capital come from??? not from hard work but violence and corruption in the past. that is the wrong we must right! where did you get your money?

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 12 years ago

so does that mean i can crash on your couch ?

your right a corporation is not a person but it needs to have matter kept private. Privacy should be in everything it helps competition

since i am student i have no money so i get some of it from my parents since they saved for my college before i was born they did something called thinking ahead.

[-] 1 points by sufinaga (513) 12 years ago

the Fed is PRIVATE. ie the money is privately printed. money is power over others. if you have money you dont work. if you dont have money you work or look for work. you work for those who have the money. but they created the money privately. its a STINKING SYSTEM.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 12 years ago

yes it is a system and you know every time i see caps i just think you are raging out of your little mind again can i crash on you couch and i told some friends so were going to trash your place when we through a party with your beer and stereo. Still like being public ask me after the party.

money is a form of control but people always Success is what drives people not money. Now it is true money is needed to survive to survive within a civilization.

also money has been around since the stone age we use to trad pretty rocks or fur for other items then it turned to gold and other metals like that and stayed that way for thousands of years the we went to paper

read more so you can learn more

It is a "stinking" system and its been that way for maybe millions of years the only thing wrong with it is you and you can be removed from it

so can i get your address for that party were going to throw

[-] 1 points by sufinaga (513) 12 years ago

dumbass! your life will pass in a flash and you are gone. we live forever!!!

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 12 years ago

i'm concerned if you need help thinking your an elf or something because we dont live for ever but what we do with our time my become legendary

two question

one are you ever going to answer any of my post instead of ranting a a tangent subject

two i still need that address for this weekend man my friends are getting itchy about it and wont leave me alone

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

".... they could be about to invest into something that will cost them a lot of money....."

right.... to make those at the top even MORE profit while their minions get laid off.... I mean, fired

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 12 years ago

no like a computer system that gets rid of people

laid off and fired are two different things

laid off mean that you are let go because they no long need or something not the person being fired fault

fired mean that you violated your contract and are being terminated because of your own actions

[-] 0 points by jdoggma (25) 12 years ago

"we demand a LIVING ALLOWANCE FOR ALL" - why not demand a million dollar per year salary for all?

[-] 2 points by primitivetimes (73) 12 years ago

So you have a problem with workers demanding a livable wage, but have no problem with CEOs deciding their own compensation? Or for that matter, deciding the wage of their employees? How about a minimum wage of 2 dollars an hour and 16 hour work days? Is that just the free market at work?

[-] 1 points by sufinaga (513) 12 years ago

the rich own the land by theft and violence. the rich own the automated means of production making an increasing number unemployed. we are reincarnating spirits and have lived many lives. they got rich on our slavery over many generations. now it is time we were paid for the work we have done through the ages. or are you our ENEMY looking down on your fellow man and wanting to arrest us as domestic terrorists, enslaved in FEMA concentration camps and burnt in their incinerators. if so you are a FASCIST AO and your days are numbered. may it be the END OF YOUR DELUDED LITTLE WORLD IN 2012


[-] -1 points by sufinaga (513) 12 years ago

take the money and land from the rich and redistribute it in real money not your delusional million dollars. see also my following reply!



[-] 0 points by DrCohen (0) 12 years ago

"AT&T made record profits in 2011". Um... true in some technical sense, but the bottom line is short several $B due to the U.S. govt. quashing the T-Mobile deal.


[-] 0 points by economicallydiscardedcitizen (761) 12 years ago

I'm so glad we switched carriers last month. AT&T, what used to be called 'Ma Bell' was at one time a great company to work for but no longer and, to add insult to injury, check out the latest way they are treating their customers! This is the sort of thing that would warrant me calling ANY provider who pulled a stunt like this and letting them know that my attorney will be in touch with them and to discontinue my service since it sounds to me like a breach of contract. Imagine running a business that is dependent on usage of an iPhone out 'in the field' as a 'road warrior' as in the article and then experiencing what the property manager in the example has: Offering 'Unlimited Data' but failing to mention that it doesn't mean 'Unlimited Speed' is so wrong and just adds 'icing to the cake' confirming that employees and People-The Public don't matter to AT&T only Profits (which will wane with abuse of both!

What's happening now is millions of users are experiencing complete lack of functionality of their smart phones excepting calls and text messaging for example (but without internet access for lengthy periods of time) http://www.contracostatimes.com/business/ci_19953625 "NEW YORK -- Mike Trang likes to use his iPhone 4 as a GPS device, helping him get around in his job. Now and then, his younger cousins get ahold of it, and play some YouTube videos and games.

But in the past few weeks, there has been none of that, because AT&T Inc. put a virtual wheel clamp on his phone. Web pages wouldn't load and maps wouldn't render. Forget about YouTube videos -- Trang's data speeds were reduced to dial-up levels.

"It basically makes my phone useless," said Trang, an Orange County, Calif. property manager.

The reason: AT&T considers Trang to be among the top 5 percent of the heaviest cellular data users in his area. Under a new policy, AT&T has started cutting their data speeds as part of an attempt to manage data usage on its network.

So last month, AT&T "throttled" Trang's iPhone, slowing downloads by roughly 99 percent. That means a Web page that would normally take a second to load instead took almost two minutes.

AT&T has some 17 million customers with "unlimited data" plans that can be subject to throttling, representing just under half of its smartphone users. It stopped signing up new customers for those plans in 2010, and warned last year that it would start slowing speeds for people who consume the most data."

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 12 years ago

Anyone know specifically what jobs are being eliminated?

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 12 years ago

Yes that would be enlightening, and would tell us if "technology" replaced those jobs, or they were the result of a lay off while a CEO walks away with millions of $...


[-] -1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 12 years ago

A chant for today:

CEO cut your pay don't let these jobs go away!

[-] -1 points by smellyowsloozer (-51) 12 years ago

Oh yea....we see how well those other "occupy" movements are working out for you. this should be a good one.

You fucking looooosers. Give it up. You lost

[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 12 years ago

You have no right to force a company's business decisions.

[-] 3 points by ShayToronto (9) from Toronto, ON 12 years ago

It does not make sense for someone to make $27 million annually amidst record profits while laying off employees. Without paid workers, there are no consumers for these products, including AT&T's. What in the hell has happened to corporate social responsibility or even basic economics?

[-] 3 points by zorbaka2 (61) 12 years ago

a few million might be reasonable. No one really objects to people getting compensated more for more responsibility. It has just gotten way, way out of proportion to anything reasonable. The boards of the corporations are rubber stamp people cause they get paid high to approve it. Most stock holders would not approve this amount of pay if they had any say. This is gradually changing but it takes time and the ceos are getting all they can while claiming rediculous compensation is still possible.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

Well AT&T obviously thinks that these employees are not worth what they are being paid. I once had to lay off a couple people and it was not pleasant, in fact it was one of the worst things I have ever had to do. But the fact of the matter was that what they were contributing to my business was not worth what they were being paid. My business became more efficient and profitable without them and that is what running a business is all about. It does suck for everyone involved though.

[-] 2 points by fairness33 (6) 12 years ago

Your answer, while at first glance seems sound, after some thinking it is NOT based on fact. You say that AT&T "obviously" thinks that these employees are not worth what they are being paid. Do you know it is well documented that companies lay off workers that have been promoted AND are highly ranked?? Add MORE value than many of the employees that remain??This happens time and time again. So this statement is not true. You ARE TRUE to say that laying off an employee is one of the worst things you ever had to do and you may be true that these workers were not contributing to your business to the degree you would like. From your answer, I suspect you have a small business as compared to AT&T. Thats a big difference, because employees who ARE contributing to these firms ARE being layed off. Iam not saying all, but many are. I guarantee that when AT&T shows it's next quarterly financials, these jobs will NOT make ONE BIT of difference to their bottom line as compared to your statement of efficiency. This is simply managing people like physical assets that can get tossed in order to show higher profits in order to get bigger compensation and approval from wall street so the stock goes up. Its that simple..IT MUCH easier to cut people and costs vs. trying to grow revenue. By the way, the CEOs are paid on profit not revenue anyway...Hmmm would be interesting to see how the CEO has been paid over the years, I bet his salary/benefits have not gone down at all!

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

They layoff the highly ranked and promoted people because they are often the most overpaid. The bang for your buck is better than laying off people who make much less. Businesses change, markets change, inefficiencies change, competitors change, technology changes, etc. So does the optimal amount of labor for a company.

And the CEO's long term compensation is more closely tied to the stock price, which is obviously affected by profits, but also many more things. But that stock price also determines the long-term retirement funds for the average employee since most companies include their own stock heavily in its 401ks, as well as the investments of millions of other middle class Americans.

[-] 1 points by fairness33 (6) 12 years ago

Hmmm...You mention that they layoff "the most over paid." Then, why is it that none of the Directors and Officers of major companies get laid off when they are infact the highest paid and most over paid???Please look at my response above to "Machine Shop Hippie". Did you know that in the 1950's the average CEO of a very large company made approx. 25-50x its average employee, that by 1970 in was up to 100x then by 1980 up to 200x and then up until the current credit crisis began in around 2007 it was over 500x the pay of its average employee???This is a FACT and should quickly help you understand who is "overpaid" .You are missing the total boat with how this world works. You are close, but not totally right that a CEO has its pay tied to the stock price. They really get their base and performance pay tied to Earnings Per Share (EPS). By tying their pay to EPS, the can financially engineer EPS to make the numbers and it takes out the potential volatility of share prices. Yes, they do get stock options, stock grants, stock appreciation rights, etc..etc., which by the way the average employed ABSOLUTELY does not get, and that is another story for another day. Don't even get me going on how companies have "conveniently" thrown their employees on defined contribution 401-Ks while the execs continue to have their own defined benefit pension plans. Believe me, NONE of todays CEOs go to the poor house simply because their stock cratered...simply does not happen in a fixed game. Please read my response above, I give some advice to that individual, which I think you would enjoy following up on...good luck..

[-] 1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

A 401k IS NOT a retirement plan. Please. Don't even start with that bullshit. It's high-end gambling at best.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

Most of them allow you to change the asset allocation. You can invest in bonds or a money market fund if you are really risk adverse, it doesn't have to be stocks.



[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 12 years ago

It doesn't have to make sense. It's not your call, it's theirs. If I think you have too much, would you mind if I stopped by and demanded you give some shit away?

Didn't think so.

[-] 0 points by ShayToronto (9) from Toronto, ON 12 years ago

Your statements are overly simplistic, childish, and untutored. It is not about grabbing things, it is about corporate responsibility in the face of layoffs and a dire economic situation. People there work for their pay.

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 12 years ago


Pistols at dawn, toots.

[-] -1 points by ShayToronto (9) from Toronto, ON 12 years ago

Heh. Call me toots one more 'gain, little man, and see what happens to you!

[-] 2 points by slizzo (-96) 12 years ago

OK, toots.


[-] -1 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 12 years ago

in many cases, corporations can be more socially responsible of course, but in the end if a company doesn't make money they are out of business, and then no one has a job.

[-] 0 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

The difference here is that AT&T DOES make money.... plenty of it.

[-] 0 points by tomahawk99 (-26) 12 years ago

Do you want the government to mandate who they fire who they hire, what business decision they can make? At best the government can build a good business environment so that companies can grow and hire more employees.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 12 years ago

this person is completely right

A business is a private matter not a public one. PERIOD

[-] -1 points by SwissMiss (2435) from Ann Arbor Charter Township, MI 12 years ago

AT&T is a PUBLICLY TRADED company.... therefore, it's actions are NOT a private matter.... Einstein.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 12 years ago

publicly traded privately own meaning you can buy into it. only once you buy into it can you vote on matters and until then its none of your business to interfere

[-] 1 points by qtip (3) 12 years ago

Tell me then, DanielBarton. Do you think a company can pollute and poison the drinking water for the city? According to you the company is private and the citizens of said city have no business interfering. If a company negatively affects the citizenry's health, be it physical health or economic health, then it IS A PUBILC MATTER. I'm sure you're familiar with the equivalency of a corporation to an individual so look at it this way: If I decide to smoke cigarettes that's my private business... UNTIL my secondhand smoke potentially harms other people. In this scenario, the law did in fact step in to make sure my "private" matter couldn't negatively affect the public. The principle I've demonstrated here should then apply to corporations since the law currently holds that corporations are people. If a company's private matters affect the public then it is a public matter. PERIOD. pwned.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 12 years ago

It depends how they affect the Public in pollutants or anything that deals with nature the government has already set up standards or companies to follow. If they don't they are fined. that is the only reason the public can make their way known. Since this is not a matter of pollutants the following would happen.

Now they can choose the response that does affect the public such as moving a factory or laying off workers. The government or public has no say in this. The only way you have a say in this is if you own stock or are a share holder that is Business 101.

Second hand smoke is a bad example to go to because banning of smoking should only be done in public places. i have a good video for you to watch that explains a good side of that.


[-] 1 points by qtip (3) 12 years ago

I see your point and at this level I would agree that a company can layoff whoever they want, even though it might not be the most "human" thing to do. It is still my contention, however, that corporations have become far too powerful in controlling and consolidating wealth and exploiting workers. You said before that CEOs deserve their pay with their "high stress" jobs. I am an aircraft mechanic (laid off in 2009 incidentally). Peoples' lives literally depended on how well I did my job but I earned probably 1/400th what my CEO made. I don't have the figures in front of me but I think Japan had the next highest pay gap with the highest earners making 25 times the lowest paid. Then there's the U.S. where it's over 500 times. Capitalism is out of control and it's going to end badly here. Don't get me wrong; we need corporations in some form. Without their financial power we wouldn't have technological innovation. I mean, a mom and pop organization can't really make microchips can they? I just think there should be some kind of controls in place to keep that kind of power from becoming abusive. Maybe I didn't choose the best example before I mean I'm no great debater or anything.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 12 years ago

i agree to some point that the corporations have to much power but it was also the governments fault to. They caved into greed corporations are limited on what they can do all by the government. Well our government decided who could win and lose taking capitalism away from the good form and corrupting it to a bad form. I say we need a reform of a system with less government intervention such as subsidies and hand outs and more government of regulation.

Im sorry for your job loss

[-] 1 points by qtip (3) 12 years ago

YES. I fully agree with you there. That is the problem. Corruption is rampant in the government.

[-] -1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 12 years ago

Actually, we do. This company directly affects how many millions of lives every day?