When 45,000 Verizon workers walked out on Aug. 8, rejecting draconian work-rule and benefit concessions demanded by the telecom giant, union officials representing the strikers spoke of a historic showdown.
Greg Chenez, president of Communication Workers of America (CWA) Local 1117, said Verizon’s “demands cover everything we’ve negotiated over the past 50 years and they want concessions on all of it.” Chenez said the company was insisting on “concessions on wages, pensions, medical benefits, work rules, job security, double time, differentials, sick pay, disability payments, reducing vacations, tuition reimbursement and increasing retiree costs for benefits. Their list goes on and on and on.”
Yet two weeks into the strike, even as Verizon appeared to be feeling the sting from growing service complaints, union bigwigs called it quits. Saying the job action successfully got Verizon’s “attention,” union insiders claimed the company agreed to drop some of the more than 100 different concessions it was seeking. But major issues remain on the table, such as making unionized workers pay for healthcare plans for the first time, ending pension contributions for existing employees and switching new workers to volatile 401(k) pensions.
BACK TO THE TABLE
For its part, Verizon, which demanded $1 billion in givebacks from unionized wireline technicians despite posting $19.4 billion in profits in the last four years, was far from conciliatory. After the CWA and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) announced it would re-engage in negotiations, company spokesman John Bonomo mocked the picket lines as “theatrics.” Verizon Executive Vice President Marc Reed, whom labor reporter Steve Early describes as a “major architect” of the company’s de-unionization strategy, also took a dig, claiming Verizon only wanted “to convince the unions to begin bargaining in good faith.”
Nonetheless, some labor supporters see hope in the renewed talks. Joe Burns, a CWA lawyer (whose work is unrelated to Verizon) and author of Reviving the Strike: How Working People Can Regain Power and Transform America, said that in most situations when a strike ends without a deal, workers are forced to work without a collective bargaining agreement until one is reached. In this case, the company agreed to have the current pact extended.
“That demonstrates that the strike was having success. It represents the company having to back down,” Burns told The Indypendent. “We haven’t seen a strike like this for years. It’s a very significant event. The question’s going to be: how do you keep up the pressure?”
Burns argues unions need to see the process as more like a chess game and less like a boxing match. He says a strike isn’t about trying to land a knockout blow against the company, but rather it’s a tool in a multi-pronged approach, especially when the company’s war chest is much bigger than the union’s. In this instance, Labor Notes reported that “on the eve of the strike, Verizon announced it would pay a special $10 billion dividend to shareholders.” Meanwhile, the CWA went into battle with a $400 million strike fund that would pay a maximum of $300 a week to picketers.
“From the union side it was more strategic to go back to work,” Burns said. “The point is you need to have tactical flexibility.”
And he might be right for the veteran workers: The unions may walk away with a contract that doesn’t have all the givebacks the company wanted.
THERE IS POWER IN A UNION
But the Verizon strike was also a rare opportunity when union workers could show their might. The strike ended just as service disruptions began to be reported. CWA District 1 Vice President Chris Shelton called the strike a “Wisconsin moment,” referring to the rank-and-file mobilization and occupation of the statehouse in Madison last February against the Republican effort to strip public workers of collective bargaining rights.
Is it naive to think that a strike at a hostile and profitable company like Verizon could be a turning point for private sector labor after three decades of defeat? Not only can this be done, it has been done.
In August 1997, more than 185,000 Teamsters at UPS went on strike, crippling the giant of the courier industry. The company had been creating two classes of workers: full-time workers and an army of part-time workers who averaged $11 an hour. The Teamsters, under the leadership of Ron Carey, elected on a dissident reform slate, spent more than a year organizing members. Issues included limiting subcontracting, fixing hazardous working conditions, raising pay from the bottom up and, most importantly, creating more full-time positions for part-time workers.
HOW TO WIN A STRIKE
With the company not budging during the strike, the union pursued a sophisticated media and outreach strategy, organizing community supporters and other workers to join Teamsters on the picket lines coast to coast. In the end, the Teamsters notched a decisive victory with a contract that included 20,000 full-time job opportunities through new hires and promotions, as well as pay increases and caps on subcontracting. The fight also sparked a national conversation about a profitable corporation’s responsibility to invest in decent-paying jobs.
Like the UPS strike, Verizon workers had the opportunity to shut down a well-known company that could not move offshore. Hiring scabs to maintain the complex copper line system would have been impractical. And with national anger raging about a federal debt-limit deal that puts more burdens on the poor and workers for the sake of the rich, a campaign against corporate greed could have easily gained sympathy, particularly when the five top executives at Verizon raked in $258 million over the last four years.
The unions also had a choke point with the upcoming release of the iPhone 5. Had the strike gone on, picketers outside Verizon Wireless stores could have urged potential customers to patronize AT&T. Just as the Teamster strike cost UPS tens of millions of dollars a day, forcing it back to the table, a campaign to deny Verizon iPhone customers could have taken a bite out of its profits. In April, Verizon reported that iPhone sales helped it triple its first-quarter profits to $1.44 billion compared to 2010.
In reality, according to CWA insiders, strike planning was a maladroit affair, brought on more by rank-and-file anger than strategic organizing. Also, strikers said the unions limited their demands to the prior contract. The unions failed as well to outline a strategy for organizing the 135,000 non-unionized Verizon workers, overwhelmingly in the wireless division. Over the last decade, union density at Verizon and its subsidiaries has dropped from 70 percent to 30 percent. After a strike in 2000, CWA won contract language allowing it to sign up wireless workers without company interference, a stipulation Verizon systematically undermined. This time, CWA spokeswoman Candice Johnson said, “We’ve been hearing from thousands of wireless workers who are interested in joining the union. We have some capability of doing that.”
But Daniel Gross, executive director of Brandworkers International and a former Industrial Workers of the World organizer, is skeptical of this possibility.
“It’s a tremendous failure of the labor movement to leave retail, for example, as a largely uncharted territory,” he said. “Where are the resources being deployed to get these folks organized, instead of the tens of millions of dollars pumped into the Democratic Party?”
He also downplayed claims that CWA strikers caught the attention of wireless workers wanting to join a union. As Gross pointed out, having union members outside the store while the non-union worker is inside with the manager reinforces the image of the union as a third party. “Workers end up seeing the union as something they don’t control,” he said.
With the unions and Verizon back in negotiations, it’s uncertain if the strike will result in a better contract. Even if the unions beat back the major concessions, it won’t add to the current national discussion about class, wages and unions. Nor would it bring hope to non-union workers at Verizon or anywhere else for that matter.
Other corporations might conclude that they can simply wait for the workers to come back and say, “We want to talk.” Gary Chaison, a professor of industrial relations at Clark University, asks, “Does that dull the effectiveness of the use of the strike weapon?”
When labor needs that tool the most, the answer is yes.
Ari Paul has reported for The Nation, The American Prospect, Al Jazeera English and Free Speech Radio News.
Comments
Man, Unions are horrible. Destroys american companies and makes them uncompetitive. Most union workers I know laugh about how they don't have to work and haha, cant get fired. I have a relative who tried to do business in a heavy union city...they tried to have her meet up at an abondoned lot... this is a sweet young girl with kids trying to make a living. and y cant a worker choose not to be in the union and just get the money instead of paying big dues and money to the heads of the unions. or like this thing with boeing in south carolina, a lot of people are not gonna have jobs because of this, thanks alot for helping the american worker unions... by kkeping the unemployed. I mean unions play an important role in society, but geez. how many others would have jobs if you didnt make all these companies unprofitable... GM an crysler have gone bankrupt twice, and been bailed out by tax payers, but some how BMW/toyota etc. can all make cars...with american workers and be nicely profitable. Plus they talk about like beating people who disagree with them, real american...it's called freedom of speech.
Well (answering concerned), I guess you have an argument when speaking about auto workers through the 70's 80's and 90's. There is quite a difference in the type of pension they received than one a telecom worker from Verizon (even going back to NYT, NYNES and Bell Atlantic - pre-mergers). The telecom worker has a standard DB pension vs the Final Salary type pensions some other unionized shops attained from their employers. And let's not forget the economic dynamics as well - the example I use (auto) was not profitable, whether you want to blame that on their companies management (decisions made) or the compensation package also has debate on both sides of the coin. However Verizon hadn't seen such a downturn in their profitability nor had they reported any losses. Now the mentality of today I guess can be attributed to the X and y generation - as they see a unionized worker in a stereotypical light. They also tend to be more educated - yet are willing to settle for less, falling for the ultra-conservative viewpoint of remaining competitive. They fail to recognize when speaking of our economy - it is consumer based (70%). As for phone service and utilities, some consumer products - all these companies DO have a base of consumers that won't go away based just on the fact of geography. Companies are looking to increase shareholder profitability - and even do so at the cost of those they employ and yes ultimately even to it's own consumers. I mean just look at Vz and ATT changing data plans on their cell service - that move is not only intended to alleviate data usage strains in their networks, but also to generate more revenue because people WILL pass their cap (oh lets not forget - the pricing tiers are much higher than the unlimited plans they discontinued). Companies ALL look to outsource work - and have eliminated millions of jobs over the past decade, their executives have had a massive INCREASE in compensation packages they receive and at the same time those they employ have had a DECREASE in theirs. Want to talk about being fair - reward all not just the few whom say "yes" to ideas presented to them because it's their workforce that implements those ideas through hard work, not them swinging away on the golf course. Here --- A manager in verizon I believe makes around 100K/yr - verizon laid off tens of thousands of them - then when they needed when they cut too deep, instead of rehiring a few laid off whom had experience and working knowledge - they hired a kid straight from college, having zero experience and willing to work at a fraction (40k/yr), my take being of course, that college kid who invested in his future by going to college is actually so ignorant he/she is willing to work and struggle financially because they do not realize they are actually worth more. Hey if I were running a company, yeah I would look to hire some young ignorant people - it's cheaper than hiring let's say someone whom knows their worth ;-). It's funny how people fall for the line being feed them from people in "leadership" positions about being competitive or that compensation for their employment is in line with "industry standard" haha yes it is - but after years of companies (specifically those who run them) bring down the standard of living, take away parts of that compensation (pensions, reducing health care, expecting more production, outsourcing lots of jobs FOREVER), after so many years of that and forcing a complacency to the middle class combined with an economic downturn, of course you will have people settling for anything - even if it is a substandard life their parents didn't have to endure because they weren't that stupid. There was a time a household could survive on one income, that slipped to 2 incomes, hey maybe we'll have to start sending our kids to sweatshops just to get by now. It's what you preach "concerned" one.
Dear Concerned,
I don't know where you get the idea that unions destroy American companies - maybe Fox News or Verizon press releases? The unions in America are what created a strong middle class that could afford to educate their children and make ours a better society. Now the middle class is disappearing and we are ending up as a third world country full of uneducated yahoos that do not know that they are being manipulated.
Most union workers I know work hard and earn every cent they make. If they aren't doing the job, their fellow workers will make sure that either they start working or quit.
From reading your post, I would guess that most likely you are a Verizon company stooge trying to make it look like you are a blue collar worker that is "concerned" about the unions. What crap with all of your bad spelling and grammar. It's ignorance and stupidity like this that is ruining America. Go post your Teaparty crap somewhere else.
When UPS went on strike in the late 90's, the company I worked for was very fortunate to ship virtually everything via FedEx as FedEx stopped taking new customers during the strike. When I later changed companies I moved that company away from their existing relationship with UPS. You can not count on a company with a unionized workforce. At some point, virtually all unions go on strike.
I find this article lamenting how more damage wasn't inflicted on Verizon to be short sighted and sad. Unions are parasitic by nature. If they do mortal damage to their host, then they too die. Even if they don't mortally wound the company, they often damage themselves like with UPS. I'm not the only one who remembers that strike, and not the only one who is smart enough not to rely on them. Fewer shipments for UPS to handle means fewer employees needed, and fewer union members.
By the mindless anti-worker attitude of the posters, one would expect both Verizon and UPS to be dying corporations because of the demands of their workers. But this is the farthest thing from the case, as both behemoths are multi-billion dollar companies with well compensated CEOs.
Without a doubt, we are seeing the working class pay the bill left by the bankers and big corporations are trying to cash in as well because why should those bankers have all the fun? Why not ask workers who've made your company profitable beyond imagination to should more of the burden? There's probably enough Blockhead-Americans out there to go for it.
My company has plenty of workers and we pay them well. FedEx has workers and I'm a big fan. Toyota has workers and I own one. No one is anti-worker. For you to say as much is ridiculous. A union and a worker are not the same thing.
I wouldn't even mind unions if their members could be counted on to be workers. Almost without exception all unions at some time or another force work stopages or work slow-downs. If you want to say I'm anti-striker, or anti-slacker, or anti-extortionist, that is fair, but I'm all for workers. I don't even mind union members when they are workers.
Cwa sucks! Give me my picket money!
Hey berto! Cwa rules. They're gonna get me my job back and I'm laughing all the way to the bank getting my 300 strike pay son! I'm coming back Denis!
Outsourcing is the main problem here. Americans should be outraged over this. Unfortunately nobody cares until it happens to them. The government actually PAYS Verizon to send work overseas. This makes no sense. Yet all people do is laugh about it, use the standard Indian accent and make some joke about it. They even make a tv show about it. America no longer produces anything. Therefore all that is left for jobs is supporting the products made overseas. When all these jobs are now also overseas the only jobs left will be at walmart and target. It's bullshit. Outsourcing will kill Americas middle class. The middle class supports America. Once the middle class is gone. America will no longer exist. Let your voices be heard.
I agree with 'Keep jobs in America' 100%. Outsourcing is causing the destruction of the middle class. For that you can lay all of the blame at the feet of unions and high corporate tax rates. It is no coincidence that regions of historically high union involvement are now referred to as the rust belt.
If you want to save the American middle class, convince your representatives to repeal the National Labor Relations Act and drop the corporate tax rate to zero.
The line about companies moving offshore due to labor costs is pure union propaganda. It is true workers in foreign countries get paid substantially less, but when you figure in transportation costs and the infrastructure needed to keep things coordinated over such distances, the savings is trivial.
The real reason companies move offshore:
No human can manufacture a product at the same speed, to the quality, or the per unit cost of an assembly robot. Unions fought to keep assembly robots off manufacturing floors and almost overnight ruined the ‘Made in America’ brand. Even American consumers knew the best electronics and cars were Japanese. Any company who wanted to survive on the strength of putting out a good product had to get away from the anti-progress unions of the 70’s and 80’s.
In the 90’s and now it is the oppressive tax climate. Rates that may have worked in the past do not work now that foreign countries are competing with their own lower tax rates. Union owned politicians are treating American business as a birthright instead of as a client they depend on, and American business is running for the door. General Electric realized all of their profits at overseas subsidiaries to avoid the taxes here. There are a lot of jobs going to foreign workers at those foreign subsidiaries. Virtually the entire Fortune 500 is doing it, has to do it to survive.
It may be true the unions created the middle class in the past, but it is equally true the unions of the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s and today have destroyed the middle class as they chase creators of middle class jobs offshore. That this article would lament CWA Local 1117 couldn't do more damage to Verizon I find to be a perfect microcosm as to why we are where we are, and I couldn’t care less as to what Verizon’s CEO makes.
Would someone like to explain how offshoring jobs at a company like Verizon, which now - because of its 2005 acquisition of MCI - has a worldwide presence, hurts AMERICAN jobs?
That's nonsense.
What hurts AMERICAN jobs is unions with outdated "work rules" and other stilly things, which do not let the Company of the unioned workers change processes or systems without ridiculous "advance notification" of the union - 6 months, in Verizon's case. Time to join the 21st century and go with the flow.
If the Union wins the battle of the Pension, Retiree Health Care benefit, and paying part of Health Care premiums, the non-unionized 135,000 Verizon employees are going to cry foul at the 45,000 unionized employees. Why should THEY get special treatment?
We all want good benefits but it makes sense for the Company to level the playing field on these major, most costly, benefits.
Noneya. How about it hurts American jobs because EVERY outsourced job is a job that is ELIMINATED over here, it's pretty simple actually. Oh sure there's the they just answer the phones - that can be done anywhere, sure it can- So can technical support ALL TIERS minus the actual technician at the door. Now what that creates across the board is less jobs - so that person who may be answering a call here, or that technician who shows up at the door is now in a "competitive" job market. Doesn't sound bad - competition usually breeds innovation, EXCEPT with the TENS OF MILLIONS of jobs that have been outsourced (and yes, not just talking Verizon here) what that creates for the employer is a massive advantage. Because they can say to the unionized worker or for that matter the non-unionized worker "I can and am paying this part of my workforce with the same skill set LESS and with nearly ZERO benefits to do the job you do". The sad part of that is - is that person that gives them that leverage is YOU. It's understandable in this economy (hell the last several yrs in fact) that you're happy to even be working, but hey... you are complacent because of that. Instead of asking "why are the executives and board members INCREASINGLY are making more?" - You are falling for the "we have to be competitive" BS line they feed you. It's easy to say well look at their competition - well go ahead LOOK at them, it's another pool of employees that slipped into complacency. Now I am not saying everyone has to make the same but in certain industries (such as cable, Telecom/broadband, wireless, electric distribution- etc...) the have consumers and the churn rates from quarter to quarter aren't massive at all. Hell verizon claims "we lost xxxxxxx in POTS customers" but did you know that when they convert said POTS customers over to DSL or FIOS that they STILL consider it a loss? Yes Whacky math. And the revenue is skewed because of write downs (due to downsizing as well as the investment to the initial FIOS rollout). And the thing is they are incredibly profitable - on both sides of the business. Without wireline there is no wireless. Anyone could call anything "propaganda" but the numbers DONT LIE - the middle class has shrunk in average earnings and executive compensation and shareholder value have grown incredibly. Companies have to survive? - Thats a good argument for the auto industry, but not a valid one across the board. I just think this generation is absolutely ignorant and nothing but lemmings to the executive propaganda that is passed on to them. ;-)
Add new comment