| Author |
Message |
    
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 291
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 6:15 pm: |     |
And to bets, who said On this topic, I have to point out that most of you reading this on your 19" monitors connected to some sort of network already have the health benefits and guaranteed employment that the masses are lacking.
You've to to be kidding. Guranteed employment? The only groups with guarantee employment are union workers, tenured teachers and professors, and very high level corporate executives. And even they don't really guaranteed employment. They have golden parachutes that most people below the very upper echelons don't come close to.
I pay my own health insurance costs. I've never had lavish benefits. Why would I expect my employer to take care of my healthcare? Do people expect their employer to take care of their gardening as well?
Yes, healthcare was a negotiated benefit at one point. Now it's completely expected. I don't expect my employer to wake me up in the morning so I can make it into work either.
Sorry, I know these are ridiculous examples, and there are good, reasoned arguments for having unions. I also realize they are usually beneficial to their members. I just get so frustrated when people talk about the things I have as if I didn't earn them. My 19" monitor came from my earnings. As I said before, so do my health benefits, my retirement plan, and my childcare. I must be oppressing someone, thuogh.
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him |
Brett
Citizen
Username: Bmalibashksa
Post Number: 32
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 8:27 pm: | |
This post is relatively short compared to the others but I had to weigh in. Last time I went for a position at company I asked if I got benefits. I felt the plan was substandard. So I asked for a better plan or more money. I received a higher paycheck to offset the expense of a better health plan.
If you do a quality job for a company you will be rewarded. If you want to do the very least and survive, join the union.
|
AZ
Citizen
Username: Azaltsman
Post Number: 169
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 11:02 pm: | |
Greentree,
First I want to say that in no way would I wish your situation on anyone else. I am sure it must be a tough time for you right now.
However, as Woodstock clearly pointed out, I do not see any correlation between the union and the peope what played a vital role during 9/11, building bridges and tunnels, and other critical projects. I see them as the people accomplishing these tasks and not the unions. The union is nothing more then a middle man. I have to ask you what can a union do for a person that a person can not do on his own? And what about this scenario - If you work for GM for example - all of the sudden the union decides to strike. Now, you have no way of controlling your destiny because now you're forced to take part of the strike. The union doesn't care about the fact that you have a mortgage or a family to feed. The just want to win, win, win. Please. People need to stand up for themselves and do what's right for them not for the unions, who hold the union members hostage during these types of ordeals.
What about public service employees that are part of unions. Teachers, police officers, etc. Unions want free health benefits. Free? What does free mean? It means the tax payers pick up the bill. No one picks up my health care bill for my family and most of the people in this country. Pensions? Who pays for that? Taxpayers. No one that I know in corporate america, executive or non executive, gets a pension. But these people do. Why aren't 401K plans with invested savings used more? Pensions are a total financial drain on taxpayers but the unions want them so the localities often agree.
Now on to Verizon. First, I think that Verizon as a company gets a bad rep. I have seen a variety of techs in my career and most of them are highly skilled, and highly valuable people. Most people in this country have no idea how complicated the telephone network is to manage and how critical of a task it is. My opinons are toward labor unions, not the employees. |
AZ
Citizen
Username: Azaltsman
Post Number: 170
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 11:13 pm: | |
...and to Bets - For the record I don't have a 19" flat panel. I have a 17" that came with my Mac that I paid for while working my butt off. Health insurance is a topic that is beyond the scope of this thread, if not he message board. This country has potentially unsurmountable problems with uninsured people. But here is what I have to say to you on that note - if you don't have health benefits offered by your current employer then find a company that has benefits. Unfortunately, this is a byproduct of a capitalist society. You want free medical benefits? Russia and France are good places to live in for that. Tough to say but true. |
hello
Citizen
Username: Hello
Post Number: 34
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 8:45 am: | |
AZ-
add canada, sweden, germany, italy, ...
(i.e., add all industrialized nations to your list)
easy to say since it's true. |
bets
Citizen
Username: Bets
Post Number: 367
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 10:34 am: | |
Well, woodstock and AZ, what say you about the millions of uninsured children in this country? Tell them to get off their butts and get better jobs? Yeah.
As far as guaranteed employment, Woodstock - look no further than your village's administrator. Not bad for a non-unionized, non-teaching, non-corporate position. |
mamatamu
Citizen
Username: Mamatamu
Post Number: 14
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 2:45 pm: | |
This comment bothers me,
...they dont measure the fact that millions of jobs are now being done in third world countries instead of the in the US because union labor is just too expensive.
US Labor is too expensive?
US labor is (hopefully) based on the amount of money one needs to live in this great nation. A minimum wage is a right (if you're a citizen). A living wage should be too. Is not the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness open to ALL workers?
Should that not be extended globally?
Don't the owners of industries and their stockholders make enough profit? What is wrong with organized laborers demanding a piece of the profit they have helped to create?
This running to the Third World, the outsourcing of jobs, really unnerves me..
It unnerves me when I pay Comcast $80 a month and someone in India answers the phone.
But it's not only Comcast, it's AOL, it's Gateway, it's Dell Computer Corporation and a host of others.
Surely these companies flee the US in order to pay someone in India $30 per month. Meanwhile, our prices, as consumers continue to rise. I wouldnt mind paying a high price if I knew that it may, in the long run, prevent someone here from homelessness or robbing me.
Would it be more suitable to you to have Verizon, a company that serves people in NY/NJ have much of its workforce in another country..or even another state?
Perhaps, just perhaps if the major corporations, the tech companies, the retail maufacturers, and all the other nasty multinationals did not flee for superprofits and paid folks a living wage, then maybe more people in this country would have jobs, and the cash needed to purchase the products that they so happily consume.
... our capitalist society has evolved over the last 100 years,
Indeed, I agree, it has become greedier and less concerned about the lives of people. |
James
Citizen
Username: Mcgregorj
Post Number: 18
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 3:17 pm: | |
I'm not even going to try to tackle everything said over the weekend, but some of the comments are just so out-there that i have to say something.
(1) someone said that "unions are the leech driving jobs, etc... overseas." Hardly. Do you know how many unionized workers there are in the US? Not enough to have that kind of impact. We wish.
(2) people talked about how labor law favors unions over corporations. That's a laugh. I'm a law student, granted I work for a union, but labor law is really biased towards employers. I have a feeling you don't understand exactly how labor relations works. The president (Republican) appoints the 5 members of the National Labor Relations Board - always 3 from his party, 2 opposition members. The NLRB does't rule in favor of unions except in cases where it can't weasel its way out of precedent. It's been more or less pro employer since 1980. In addition, NLRA statutory law has been slanted against unions since Taft-Hartley (1947) and LMRDA (1954 - of course, Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act is actually pretty good, as it supports rank and file union democracy). Get it? The National Labor Relations Act may have favored unions in the quest for "industrial peace" in 1934, but things have changed a lot since then. I can tell you - a lot of union folks would like to be in the same situation as the farmworkers - not governed by any federal labor law.
(3) AZ (I think) said that sweatshops don't exist and union don't benefit employees. I work for the Union of Needletrade, Industrial and Textile Employees. There are a lot of sweatshops in the US. I can assure you that those employees who are in union textile factories are happy about their union. Of course, they are the union.
One of our major current campaigns is against Cintas. There's been lots of press, so take a serious look at what are workers have been put through and what they hope to gain. www.uniformjustice.org
Finally, I'll just say to people who are upset about not having as good a benefit plan, job security, etc... as they perceive unionized workers as having: join (or start) a union of your own. |
Brett
Citizen
Username: Bmalibashksa
Post Number: 36
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 3:30 pm: | |
Q: Don't the owners of industries and their stockholders make enough profit?
A: No, there is no such thing as “enough profit”
The United States was built on Capitalism not communism. Why should someone be expected to give higher paying jobs to a union employee when they can find cheaper employees overseas? I’m not running a charity here it’s a business; I’m doing this to make money. I have collage grads asking for $85-$100K, I should give them the job instead of someone just as qualified in India for 10-15K? The people in India need jobs also, but when they start to raise their prices, I’m switching to Romania.
“From each according to his ability to each according to his need” doesn’t work.
|
James
Citizen
Username: Mcgregorj
Post Number: 19
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 3:48 pm: | |
re: Brett's comment about unrestrained capitalism:
This is the fundamental problem with labor law in this country. It's prefectly acceptable to think that capitalism should be unrestrained, but it's against the law for a union to do pretty much anything effective.
Fine! Bring back 1934. Let unions and employers go at it no holds barred!
Employers are pretty much unrestrained already, let the unions be too. And to think that people still think that things are stacked in favor of unions...
- James |
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 292
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 4:19 pm: | |
mamtamu wrote:
quote:Don't the owners of industries and their stockholders make enough profit? What is wrong with organized laborers demanding a piece of the profit they have helped to create?
1-Who decides what is "too much profit?" At what point do you say to someone, you've made enough money. No reason to work any harder, because you're not going to get any more money for your work.
2-Is organized labor willing to take a hit on the losses? If they want a piece of the profits, they need to be ready to take a piece of any losses as well. Otherwise, they're not taking the same risk that the shareholders are, and are therefore not entitled to a piece of the profit. You can't have it both ways. None of the downside, and all of the upside.
3-We talk about "greedy corporations," but a company is made up of people. To whom do you say, no more income? that's what profit is - income. So who gets their income capped, and told not to put more effort (human or financial capital) into a company?
Imagine if you were a shop owner and you were told by the town that you could not make more than 7% on your investment. Can you recoup losses from a previous year? What if I lose 10% in 2003 - can I make 15% in 2004, or am I stuck not even able to break even?
Now let's say I own 3 stores. Am I big enough to have my profits limited? At what point is a company big (or greedy) enough to have their income limited?
The whole concept of capping income is, to me, monumentally stupid and against our whole economic system, except in natural or unnatural monopolies, where market forces can't act to correct any ridiculous anomalies.
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him |
James
Citizen
Username: Mcgregorj
Post Number: 21
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 4:33 pm: | |
#3: "profit = income."
Just a note that, actually, profit is defined as the amount of money beyond that which a business owner requires to stay in production. Once a company meets its costs (which could, of course, include a tremendously huge salary, all the extra is "profit." |
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 293
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 5:14 pm: | |
james,
But the company is essentially a non-entity. Who owns the profits? Shareholders. They are either reinvested in the company, or doled out as dividends. (or kept as reserves). Yes, a CEO can get a very high salary. They also take on a lot of responsibility. Have CEO salaries gotten out of hand? Absolutely. Take that up with the specific boards of directors. You do negotiate BOD seats in your negotiations, don't you?
Salaries in white collar jobs are what the market will bear. Wy should it be different at different levels of the company?
Also, you previously said that people who do not have as good a deal as unions get should unionize. As you said, salaries (and benefits) are part of the cost of doing business. More benefits leads to higher prices. If I can't sell my product at the higher price, I go out of business. Then all my employees are out of jobs, including my union employees. Job security only lasts as long as the company you work at is solvent.
Again I ask, if you want to benefits of the upside of a business cycle, are you willing to take the same risks on the downside?
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him |
AZ
Citizen
Username: Azaltsman
Post Number: 172
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 8:37 pm: | |
Don't the owners of industries and their stockholders make enough profit? What is wrong with organized laborers demanding a piece of the profit they have helped to create?
And why exactly do the laborers need to be organized to get a piece of the profit? Is the way to a piece of the profit to increase hourly rates? Or would it be more for a company to invest into retirement plans? But wait a minute, the unions need to be paid, or paid off, whichever way you want to look at it. How many hundreds of millions of dollars in this country is wasted by union fluff and middlemen? People pay dues out of every paycheck but what do these dues do? They pay the employees of unions. Unionized workers increase the cost of doing business. This is a free and capitalist country and the business owner or CEO deserve to make as much profit as possible and be rewarded for the risks taken by running businesses. Employees deserve to be paid whatever the market bears for their labor.
Reading through these posts I've come to realize that maybe there are some industries that may benefit from unions (needlepoint being one of them). However, I still believe if corporations would treat employees fairly then there wouldn't be a need for unions to even exist. The problem is that unionization pushes beyond the point of employee interests and often times into greed. |
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 294
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 11:35 pm: | |
bets, I missed your post this morning. To the children of parents that can't afford health insurance, I say tell you parents to get into the state-run health plans for minors. But uninsured children is a non-starter. It's a red herring. Millions of non-union employees have health benefits. Millions don't. Someone is paying for those benefits. Don't think that when benefit costs go up, those nasty, awful, greedy companies don't raise their prices.
My children are not covered by a company health plan. I pay for my own health insurance. Why am I paying for everyone elses' in the cost of the products I buy?
And about the village admin's "guaranteed employment," I'm sure there are many more "out-clauses" for the village in his contract than in any union contract. And even if there aren't, it's not a long term contract. You can be a union member for your career and not be able to be fired. His new contract is only for five years.
Let's not bring local politics into this, though. You obviously have an ax to grind there, and bringing it into every argument is silly.
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him |
1-2many
Citizen
Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 218
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 10:33 am: | |
this argument has devolved into absurd and extreme hypotheticals, that people then hang on to make a barely-related point that is much more in the middle of the bell curve.
for example: income cap? please! no one here has suggested that. it's an absurd extreme that is intended to but does NOT discredit employees' need to act in their own interests when a company won't do so.
it's hypocritical that unions are JUDGED as greedy, a judgment call no one stands up to even though union activity is as free market as you can get --- yet overpaid officers' and directors' even keener interest in getting paid, well, is called good old-fashioned American capitalism.
let's use one standard for everyone, shall we? quit the hypocrisy.
and one HUGE difference between unions and corporate fatcats is, if a union gets too fat, the people that support it will cease their support.
don't like union dues being paid from every check? don't pay them. don't unionize, or opt out.
want a voice in how you're treated by your employer? unionize. it seems many (but not all) corporations today will get away with doing as little for employees as they possibly can, and the only strength employees have is in numbers.
capitalism is not a holy grail. we cannot allow actions pursuing self-interest to go unrestrained. and those that will try to tell you capitalism IS a holy grail, are very likely keeping some nasty little secrets from you about the government benefits they accept for added revenues and decreased costs - all while extolling "free market, free market" out of the other side of their hypocritical mouths.
|
James
Citizen
Username: Mcgregorj
Post Number: 22
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 10:48 am: | |
1-2many: I couldn't have said that better myself.
We're stuck with capitalism for the forseeable future, so workers might as well do what they can to get a piece of the action. |
AZ
Citizen
Username: Azaltsman
Post Number: 173
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 11:02 am: | |
1-2many and James - Name one union where members ceased their support for it. And while you're at it name one union shop that does not charge people dues even if they opt out of it. |
1-2many
Citizen
Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 220
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 11:33 am: | |
I believe this is what's happening in a widespread fashion in Germany, right now.
|
James
Citizen
Username: Mcgregorj
Post Number: 23
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 11:44 am: | |
AZ: ha, ha! This is where a person benefits from actually knowing about the subject at hand. Perhaps you should head to the library and look up CWA v. Beck, 487 US 735 (1988). People who don't want to pay union dues are called "Beck objectors." Unions like UNITE! process very few of them. Although I did do one about a month ago - it does happen. |
1-2many
Citizen
Username: Wbg69
Post Number: 221
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 12:05 pm: | |
what's more frustrating is AZ's attempt at "debate" is actually just spewing innuendo, rather than citing any facts or evidence. |
AZ
Citizen
Username: Azaltsman
Post Number: 174
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 12:12 am: | |
Excuse me while a "cite any facts or evidence" in this New York Times articlehttp://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/13/business/13BELL.html?ex=1061352000&en=5d37 0af3b4b440e1&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
Let's see - IBEW and CWA are stabbing themselves and the Verizon employees in the foot by "recommending" that customers switch to AT&T. Let's see..let's do the math here..customers leave Verizon...Verizon's income decreases and cuts..guess what..jobs? Why? Because of a business downturn. And I suppose the unions would want to a clause that keeps people while growth is stagnant and the telecom economy suffers the largest industry losses since memory. On another note - Verizon is still a necessary evil since they own the last mile of everyone's telephone service.
Verizon did the right thing to protect itself by hiring managers as any company should against a labor union. Whether they are qualified is another story. I am sure they aren't as it is not possible, in my opinion, to learn the job of a telecom tech in a matter or weeks. So we all suffer.
I ask you all in this thread - Is the union acting in the interest of its members and their families by doing something as stupid as recommending people switch to AT&T? Is the average union employee empowered to say "hey, I need a paycheck, I don't care about the strike"? No! Because they are part of the union. If there was no union everyone would be responsible for their themselves and would be able to make choices. What choices do these people and their families have with the union?
The Cato Institue has an interesting article on the reality of Beck:http://http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-174.html
And THIS is the perfect example of legislation of labor laws vs. practical reality
Most workers do not know the details of labor law. They rely on unions and, to a smaller extent, employers to explain their rights to them. In many cases it is not in the interest of unions (and many employers) to explain worker rights accurately. Workers under union shop agreements, for example, do not have to join the union that represents them, even as financial core members, until after their probationary period on the job (usually 30 days). Nevertheless, at NUMMI, the joint venture between General Motors and Toyota in Fremont, California, newly hired workers are charged full union dues from day one. Just as bad, each new hire is presented with a card to sign that authorizes the employer to deduct "voluntary" money contributions to the United Auto Workers' PAC fund. No explanation is given; the card is just one of several papers, forms, and cards to be unaware of the nature of the authorization they sign. Those who are aware, and who would otherwise protest, are coaxed to go along by peer pressure.
Peer pressure, and all that it entails, may make enforcing Beck very difficult even if the NLRB's rules, andany congressional codification, turn out to reflect accurately the Supreme Court's substantive and procedural holdings in the forced dues case history. It is easy for unionists subtly to suggest that any dissenting worker will get undesirable job assignments, be denied promotions and transfers, and be isolated and shunned. No new worker wants to begin by identifying himself as a dissident. If he does, he may not even make it through his probationary period. Under forced unionism, the probationary period is used not just for the employer to determine whether a new worker can do the job; it is also used for the union to see whether the worker will become an adversary. Short of abolishing exclusive representation, and all that goes with it, there may not be an effective way to overcome the insidious coercion of peer pressure.
|
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 300
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 7:43 am: | |
AZ, if ths is true, and there is no better explanation, conside that the IBEW and CWA probably also represent A&T&'s workers. So what may not be good for Verizon employees might be very good for AT&T workers.
But I doubt it's anything more than a bargaining tactic. Dumb? I personally think so, yes. But not unheard of...
Waiting For The Electrician, Or Someone Like Him |
James
Citizen
Username: Mcgregorj
Post Number: 25
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 10:37 am: | |
AZ: My, you seem to have so quickly mastered the intricacies of labor law. My hat goes off to you. In 24 hours, you've done what it's taking me several semesters to do.
Employers are just as happy to have dues-checkoff as union are, since it tends to put the business agent in less contact with the workers. And seriously, every union is required by the LMRDA to distribute Beck notices to every employee which detail exactly how to pay administrative fees instead of dues.
Finally, I'm not sure that you understand the difference between closed and open shop arrangements. Outside of building trades, which work on their own particular model, you won't really find any closed shops. Read Taft-Hartley.
As for the AT&T thing, they're just compiling list of union families that would switch, to use as a bargaining tool. CWA's been doing a really good job running around Verizon so far - I think they've got their plan under control.
www.fairnessatverizon.com |
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 645
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 2:01 pm: | |
I have no objection to the thread drift, but just to return to original matter of Verizon's incredibly poor customer service for a moment...
My Verizon DSL has now been down for a month. It took THREE different technicians to come to my house to finally restore dial tone - and the third guy tried to offer me his own "independent contractor" rate before taking just a few minutes to fix the problem. I've made dozens of calls to their support center, suffering through the same tedious voicemail system each time; gone through the same time-consuming tests over and over; pleaded, cajoled, and hollered at various supervisors; wrote to the NJ Board of Public Utilities; still, I can't get email or view a web page at home. It is impossible to speak to a customer service rep more than once. Technicians that show up at my house have NO information on what has been done to date. Or, they say they couldn't get into the house while one of my parents was doing the favor of hanging out there while I'm at the office. Why, oh why is it not clear to state leaders that the public MUST be able to choose alternative providers for local phone service?! If Verizon didn't have a monopoly I would have gleefully parted ways with them years ago. As it is, I am trying to find a DSL provider who isn't merely reselling Verizon's services. Verizon sucks, sucks, SUCKS!! They are a perfect example of what happens when a company gets too big to care about an individual customer. |
Brett
Citizen
Username: Bmalibashksa
Post Number: 44
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 2:21 pm: | |
notehead: Get a cell phone for your home phone. With all the diffrent plans out there it's easy to find a plan that costs the same as your home phone. Then you don't have to deal with Verizon. |
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 648
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 2:29 pm: | |
Brett, believe me, I'm sorely tempted to do so. But it still seems like signal quality is consistently better with a land line. Anyway, since I have DishTV instead of cable, I don't think I can get cable internet access, so that means I still need my land line for DSL. (Nothing is simple...) |
ml1
Citizen
Username: Ml1
Post Number: 1198
Registered: 5-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 2:58 pm: | |
I think you can get Comcast internet service even if you don't use them for TV. It just costs more if it's not bundled with TV service. |
AZ
Citizen
Username: Azaltsman
Post Number: 175
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 8:15 am: | |
Notehead - I tried Verizon DSL just to give them a shot and the performance was really poor. Their tech support was poor as well. When the guy told me to make sure there is no cordless phone within 10 feet of the DSL modem I knew it was time to cut the losses and get out. The good thing is that they credited me for the charges. Otherwise, Verizon DSL would have been the cheapest. Bottom line - you get what you pay for.
I now have Earthlink DSL which uses Covad's backbone, the best DSL backbone in the country. Qwest recently stopped selling DSL in most markets and moved customers to Covad. You can go direct with Covad but it's more expensive. Earthlink buys in such bulk that they get to sell Covad's services at a discount.
If your home phone works then you should be able to get DSL from any carrier that has DSL equipment at the central office that handles your local phone line. I suggest giving Earthlink a shot. I think mine was set up within 2 weeks.
On the Verizon local service issue, there is no chance that will every change. Verizon owns the last mile to your house and the central offices that manage them. Even with local competition it still doesn't change that a Verizon tech is always involved. As a company, I think they are really trying. I rarely had bad experiences with dial tone because that is very heavily regulated and you did the right thing by going to the BPU. However, don't expect them to care about DSL, which is something the BPU has no control over (at least not in the practial sense). I also think it's unacceptable that the Verizon tech was offering side work.
As with any huge company I think they really have a hard time managing technicians. On the other hand I never had a problem with techs that came to my office to fix business phone service. One guy even agreed to go above and beyond what they are required to do and move our demarc (the point where phone lines come in to your home or office). Sure we were billed for it but he just wanted to tell his boss that he was on an all day project and he wouldn't have to drive around all day. I think I bought him lunch..but I don't remember.
James - Yeah, you learn something new every day. I guess if I really wanted to dig into it further I would. I remember going over Taft-Harley in some business class. When I was in college 7 years ago the Internet was empty. Now you can get anything you want in minutes. Try doing this type of research the old fashioned way at librarys. Ugh!
|
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 659
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 1:30 pm: | |
AZ, thanks. I really appreciate your comments. Actually, Verizon technician number FIVE showed up yesterday, and I finally have my DSL service restored, and I'm getting a decent bit rate (about 630 kbps). But there is no chance in the world I'll be going through this kind of rigamarole again. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page