Thread regarding CenturyLink layoffs

CWA

Been looking at this site for awhile. Spoke to friends I work with. Moral in Colorado is down big time. I went to the CWA website to see if there was any comment from them. Last officer update was last May?? Last reported grievance was addressed in 2019. What is going on?? I see events on the calendar but no files attached to the dates to indicate a meeting actually took place. The only report that seems somewhat current is the financial reporting. Is the CWA even active? Can't blame Covid the field is working seems the reps at the Union hall should be working too. What are the Union dues going to?

Just wondering if others noticed.

by
| 1566 views | | 12 replies (last )
Post ID: @OP+1aq53dTp

12 replies (most recent on top)

Most of your union dues go directly to Democrat politicians. Just Google CWA political donations. They keep removing this comment because they don’t want their members to know

by
|
Post ID: @2svv+1aq53dTp

No du––––s, you don't understand. Doesn't matter if there was work or not, COEITs got axed last year because the company decided to move to 100% contract install and because they were exempt under Addendum 9 from the contractor protections. Our COEITs were working right up to the end and still had work, even without travel, if the company was forced to use them. They weren't and they didn't. Under Addendum 9, the company can choose to move work out of the bargaining unit at any time.

The time coding and expense vs capital is a separate issue on why the company prefers to use contract labor for that work.

by
|
Post ID: @2bqw+1aq53dTp

Read the addendum in the back. COEIT work along with BRI titles, BSW, locates, construction, and some splicing are exempt from protection. Has been that way for years. Has nothing to do with a 60 mile limit.

You don't understand it obviously, those that were COEIT's know as long as your working installation be it Prems or Network you are using Capital dollars. They pull the work back within that 60 miles to make it appear that there is an over staff, not just that title but anyone they want to get rid of.

They have been trying to get rid of all construction and maintenance for years and are getting close, Garaging and space to do that, Vehicles and maintenance cost of those, the tooling, then the employees.

They contract out and have little to pay in monetary expense, but as those inside know the rework and loss of customers is huge.

They don't care it seems, different department.

by
|
Post ID: @2gdx+1aq53dTp

Read the addendum in the back. COEIT work along with BRI titles, BSW, locates, construction, and some splicing are exempt from protection. Has been that way for years. Has nothing to do with a 60 mile limit.

by
|
Post ID: @ibh+1aq53dTp

Why would you need to rely on someone's hearsay? Read the contract for yourself. It's not a state secret. If you did, you'd know that COEIT's work was excluded from the contractor provisions.

No, it is worded in such a way that they are allowed within a certain distance to Metro areas, was 60 miles. COEIT's were a traveling crew, Qwest put some language in to eliminate as much out of town travel as possible saying it wasn't cost effective, really it came out of a different bucket for the contractors and cost more. They also put in language to use contractors if skill set and or work was such that they could not handle the load.

They pulled back jobs and made it so there was no work for company COEIT's inside the 60 mile area. After I think 6 months they justified by no work putting them on the VSPP and the Surplus list the same tactic the just used again from what I have seen. Slight of hand, manipulation of budgets, holding back work to specific groups. All the while giving work to contractors until a declaration. They are suppose to not have contractors in doing work during this period of 90 days and for like a few weeks before and after, but they do work until caught and reported. They assign jobs to remote or unmanned locations where nobody see's them or off shift.

by
|
Post ID: @ldg+1aq53dTp

"I have been told"

Why would you need to rely on someone's hearsay? Read the contract for yourself. It's not a state secret. If you did, you'd know that COEIT's work was excluded from the contractor provisions.

by
|
Post ID: @kih+1aq53dTp

Our contract protects us from both the Company and Union negligence. Both can be sued.

by
|
Post ID: @ygt+1aq53dTp

The company will back off of any forced reductions in major markets. Unless you have a stellar opportunity waiting for you on the other side, resist their temptation of VSPP money. Acting out of fear is what they are counting on. At least if you are forced out, you still get ISPP and are definately able to collect unemployment too. That's a lot more $$ than VSPP without unemployment. Not everyone is religious, but the Bible says to cast down every wrong imagination from sa..n. At this point is anyone, religious or not, doubting that our current leadership is the "Master of Darkness"? They are preying on your fear. Man up and make them walk you out the door!

by
|
Post ID: @qhq+1aq53dTp

I have been told that post forced reduction, that the company only has to eliminate contractors for a short time. Maybe as little as 2 weeks. Ask the former COEIT titled employees that are gone and almost immediately were replaced with contractors.

by
|
Post ID: @ckh+1aq53dTp

The company will just go back to the union and demand that they waive the no contractor after a layoff provision or the company will cut even more.

Look at how CWA stood up against the contract violation of using combo techs. Nope, they folded like a cheap suit and let the company formally use them now.

by
|
Post ID: @ixe+1aq53dTp

I heard the union sold the union hall building

by
|
Post ID: @veu+1aq53dTp

That’s funny you say moral is down, because the Colorado market believes they’re going to back off the force reduction. They believe Centurylink/lumen isn’t d▯▯b enough to go through with it and loss all those contractors. We’ll see I guess.

by
|
Post ID: @ddi+1aq53dTp

Post a reply

: