Verizon is acquiring AT&T

mistybison10 said:First off, that’s almost certainly just a typo. Secondly, Verizon is preemptively cutting staff in that specific sector before any actual losses even hit the books. If you want to survive, the smartest move is to restructure during the years when you actually have the capital to cover it. As for the Bnet acquisition, that's purely about expanding their reach, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Verizon's core business model.

Verizon cuts staff, yet somehow they're still blowing millions on useless crap. The AT&T move feels like a total knee-jerk reaction from Verizon. If they had just jumped into the fixed market back in 2001 or 2002 when things were actually expanding and people were talking about it, they could've made some serious bank and grabbed a massive market share. Now, I guess, it's all just a bunch of empty gestures.

Maria Nelson12 said:Verizon cuts staff, yet somehow they're still blowing millions on useless crap. The AT&T move feels like a total knee-jerk reaction from Verizon. If they had just jumped into the fixed market back in 2001 or 2002 when things were actually expanding and people were talking about it, they could've made some serious bank and grabbed a massive market share. Now, I guess, it's all just a bunch of empty gestures.

Spending money on nonsense doesn't actually have anything to do with layoffs. Cutting excess staff and getting rid of low-quality or redundant roles is a smart move for long-term stability—it helps both the employees and the company's bottom line. I'm definitely not saying money isn't being wasted; that goes for management too, of course!

Verizon moving into this market segment makes perfect sense and was totally expected. As for those aggressive moves during slower business cycles? That's exactly what ensures the company stays protected and survives, which ultimately saves jobs in the long run.

Harold Wright6 said:Spending money on nonsense doesn't actually have anything to do with layoffs. Cutting excess staff and getting rid of low-quality or redundant roles is a smart move for long-term stability—it helps both the employees and the company's bottom line. I'm definitely not saying money isn't being wasted; that goes for management too, of course!

Verizon moving into this market segment makes perfect sense and was totally expected. As for those aggressive moves during slower business cycles? That's exactly what ensures the company stays protected and survives, which ultimately saves jobs in the long run.

Yeah, but the actual issue is they let go of some top-tier talent while keeping all the incompetent idiots. Sure, there’s such a thing as overstaffing, but that’s not what happened here. They didn't cut the bloat; they just decided one mediocre worker could pull the weight of two or three people for the same paycheck. The problem isn't headcount, it's that they hired people based on how much they fit in rather than skill, and now those people are too stubborn to be fired. They ran the show for ten years, but back then, the leadership was competent and the grinders were actually working, so it worked. Now that we have incompetent management and the slackers realized they can coast because everything is handed to them on a silver platter—while watching useless people get rewarded at their expense—everything is falling apart.

It's kind of funny how people were warning them about these exact issues four or five years ago and offering ways to fix it, but back then, you couldn't suggest anything useful without getting shut down. You were basically screwed if you tried to offer quality input. What's truly ridiculous is that once they announced the layoffs two months ago, suddenly all those old suggestions were pulled out of storage and became "great ideas."

Maria Nelson12 said:Verizon cuts staff, yet somehow they're still blowing millions on useless crap. The AT&T move feels like a total knee-jerk reaction from Verizon. If they had just jumped into the fixed market back in 2001 or 2002 when things were actually expanding and people were talking about it, they could've made some serious bank and grabbed a massive market share. Now, I guess, it's all just a bunch of empty gestures.

Actually, that isn't foolishness at all, because making noise is necessary, whereas clinging to redundant staff is what truly fails; labor is nothing more than a response to demand, and if a task can be completed with fewer hands, there is absolutely no reason to do otherwise. We constantly witness this absurd tendency to put "work" on a pedestal as if it were some sacred ritual, when in reality, it is merely the provision of a component or service, no different from manufacturing a screw or any other trivial object. Once the demand for those screws vanishes, you stop ordering them, and quite logically, you no longer require the laborer either.

As for how Verizon manages its internal affairs, that is hardly our concern, but rather the sole responsibility of their owner, because if he chooses to let go of the wrong people, he is the one who will ultimately suffer the consequences.

Maria Nelson12 said:Yeah, but the actual issue is they let go of some top-tier talent while keeping all the incompetent idiots. Sure, there’s such a thing as overstaffing, but that’s not what happened here. They didn't cut the bloat; they just decided one mediocre worker could pull the weight of two or three people for the same paycheck. The problem isn't headcount, it's that they hired people based on how much they fit in rather than skill, and now those people are too stubborn to be fired. They ran the show for ten years, but back then, the leadership was competent and the grinders were actually working, so it worked. Now that we have incompetent management and the slackers realized they can coast because everything is handed to them on a silver platter—while watching useless people get rewarded at their expense—everything is falling apart.

It's kind of funny how people were warning them about these exact issues four or five years ago and offering ways to fix it, but back then, you couldn't suggest anything useful without getting shut down. You were basically screwed if you tried to offer quality input. What's truly ridiculous is that once they announced the layoffs two months ago, suddenly all those old suggestions were pulled out of storage and became "great ideas."

But at that point, the real issue is who they chose to fire, not the fact that they're laying people off 🤷

Another huge red flag for US society is that this whole topic was opened up on a political news site, even though it's a 100% private company.

mistybison10 said:Actually, that isn't foolishness at all, because making noise is necessary, whereas clinging to redundant staff is what truly fails; labor is nothing more than a response to demand, and if a task can be completed with fewer hands, there is absolutely no reason to do otherwise. We constantly witness this absurd tendency to put "work" on a pedestal as if it were some sacred ritual, when in reality, it is merely the provision of a component or service, no different from manufacturing a screw or any other trivial object. Once the demand for those screws vanishes, you stop ordering them, and quite logically, you no longer require the laborer either.

As for how Verizon manages its internal affairs, that is hardly our concern, but rather the sole responsibility of their owner, because if he chooses to let go of the wrong people, he is the one who will ultimately suffer the consequences.

Your reasoning follows a very logical path, strictly adhering to that classic capitalist mindset—especially when you consider the possibility of someone running you off the road in the near future because of it. $3.25 Since there isn't enough food to go around—which is hardly a surprise when you consider that the greed of these neo-capitalists knows no bounds—the system will eventually engineer its own internal collapse.

mistybison10 said:Actually, that isn't foolishness at all, because making noise is necessary, whereas clinging to redundant staff is what truly fails; labor is nothing more than a response to demand, and if a task can be completed with fewer hands, there is absolutely no reason to do otherwise. We constantly witness this absurd tendency to put "work" on a pedestal as if it were some sacred ritual, when in reality, it is merely the provision of a component or service, no different from manufacturing a screw or any other trivial object. Once the demand for those screws vanishes, you stop ordering them, and quite logically, you no longer require the laborer either.

As for how Verizon manages its internal affairs, that is hardly our concern, but rather the sole responsibility of their owner, because if he chooses to let go of the wrong people, he is the one who will ultimately suffer the consequences.

I guess some things just can't be done with fewer people. But the real issue is that even the management doesn't seem to know what's actually possible. They've had nothing but incompetent people running the show since back in 2002, when they started phasing out the actual talent and replacing them with "yes men" who aren't allowed to take any initiative. It probably worked okay for a while because the whole market was riding high on the sheer stupidity of Americans who were leading Europe in mobile phone spending. Once things slowed down a bit right before the recession, the cracks started showing, and then—boom—the recession hits. And honestly, it's all because the company is run by total hacks who are only good at posing for the media or showing up at internal corporate parties. Any foreign execs who showed up after Oeler, Nemsic, and Kenneth Gregorij were basically just interns playing dress-up, like H. M. Magenschab and that heavy-set guy before her. As for Holjevcev, he was just a CEO with one job: stall T-Mobile from ever entering the market.

mistybison10 said:Actually, that isn't foolishness at all, because making noise is necessary, whereas clinging to redundant staff is what truly fails; labor is nothing more than a response to demand, and if a task can be completed with fewer hands, there is absolutely no reason to do otherwise. We constantly witness this absurd tendency to put "work" on a pedestal as if it were some sacred ritual, when in reality, it is merely the provision of a component or service, no different from manufacturing a screw or any other trivial object. Once the demand for those screws vanishes, you stop ordering them, and quite logically, you no longer require the laborer either.

As for how Verizon manages its internal affairs, that is hardly our concern, but rather the sole responsibility of their owner, because if he chooses to let go of the wrong people, he is the one who will ultimately suffer the consequences.

Nah, I don't think so. That only hurts the employees and the customers. The owners will always have enough profit to keep buying yachts and mansions along the coast, spending their winters in Aspen and Aspen, and gambling their way through the USA and Japan in the spring and summer.

Harold Wright6 said:But at that point, the real issue is who they chose to fire, not the fact that they're laying people off 🤷

Another huge red flag for US society is that this whole topic was opened up on a political news site, even though it's a 100% private company.

So, look... I mean, it's probably true that they needed to cut staff because a lot of them aren't exactly productive—they're just dead weight, really. The issue isn't the downsizing, it's just how they pick who gets the boot. Apparently, they wanted to axe another 200 people, but maybe the government wouldn't greenlight that much right now given everything going on, so there might be another round of cuts this fall, though I guess nothing is set in stone.

The fact that it's a private company doesn't really change much. This is one of those powerhouse firms whose business affects the entire country, which naturally drags politics into it. Like, if you look back maybe five years, they threw this massive Christmas bash just for Sanders and his inner circle, complete with huge fireworks and receptions at the MLS stadium and the Westin, and they probably burned through millions on that mess...☕

silvercrane38 said:Your reasoning follows a very logical path, strictly adhering to that classic capitalist mindset—especially when you consider the possibility of someone running you off the road in the near future because of it. $3.25 Since there isn't enough food to go around—which is hardly a surprise when you consider that the greed of these neo-capitalists knows no bounds—the system will eventually engineer its own internal collapse.

If that's the case, why don't you just pull some cash out of your own pocket and pay a salary to someone who isn't even working? Since giving a paycheck to an unproductive worker is basically just charity that hurts the company and everyone else, why not just do it?

Maria Nelson12 said:So, look... I mean, it's probably true that they needed to cut staff because a lot of them aren't exactly productive—they're just dead weight, really. The issue isn't the downsizing, it's just how they pick who gets the boot. Apparently, they wanted to axe another 200 people, but maybe the government wouldn't greenlight that much right now given everything going on, so there might be another round of cuts this fall, though I guess nothing is set in stone.

The fact that it's a private company doesn't really change much. This is one of those powerhouse firms whose business affects the entire country, which naturally drags politics into it. Like, if you look back maybe five years, they threw this massive Christmas bash just for Sanders and his inner circle, complete with huge fireworks and receptions at the MLS stadium and the Westin, and they probably burned through millions on that mess...☕

How exactly is Verizon's business a matter of state interest? We're talking about a service sector company with foreign ownership operating in a totally dynamic market.

Thinking it's normal to debate this on a political forum, or assuming the government should pressure them to stop layoffs, is exactly why our economy is in the state it's in.

Since when is it a problem if a private firm throws a party and spends whatever they want on it?

silvercrane38 said:Your reasoning follows a very logical path, strictly adhering to that classic capitalist mindset—especially when you consider the possibility of someone running you off the road in the near future because of it. $3.25 Since there isn't enough food to go around—which is hardly a surprise when you consider that the greed of these neo-capitalists knows no bounds—the system will eventually engineer its own internal collapse.

I would much rather take a single, decisive blow from one individual today than endure the slow, agonizing collapse of an entire organization months or years down the line because it devolved into nothing more than a bloated social welfare agency.

Harold Wright6 said:If that's the case, why don't you just pull some cash out of your own pocket and pay a salary to someone who isn't even working? Since giving a paycheck to an unproductive worker is basically just charity that hurts the company and everyone else, why not just do it?

I have to wonder if you've ever actually bothered to look at the line items on your own pay stub (assuming you even have one)?

silvercrane38 said:I have to wonder if you've ever actually bothered to look at the line items on your own pay stub (assuming you even have one)?

I definitely look, and honestly, it’s depressing to see how much money goes toward "charity" payouts for people who shouldn't even have jobs in government or any other public service.

Harold Wright6 said:How exactly is Verizon's business a matter of state interest? We're talking about a service sector company with foreign ownership operating in a totally dynamic market.

Thinking it's normal to debate this on a political forum, or assuming the government should pressure them to stop layoffs, is exactly why our economy is in the state it's in.

Since when is it a problem if a private firm throws a party and spends whatever they want on it?

That’s basically how they pour money straight into the government’s pockets through all those various fees and taxes, plus their "charity" work and advertising blitzes. I guess they’re also considered essential for security since they can tap into your communications whenever they feel like it. Then there’s the job market aspect—they directly employ over a thousand people, maybe even another five hundred indirectly. And honestly, they stay relevant because their management is basically just one big, interconnected corporate mafia.

Harold Wright6 said:How exactly is Verizon's business a matter of state interest? We're talking about a service sector company with foreign ownership operating in a totally dynamic market.

Thinking it's normal to debate this on a political forum, or assuming the government should pressure them to stop layoffs, is exactly why our economy is in the state it's in.

Since when is it a problem if a private firm throws a party and spends whatever they want on it?

It’s pretty much a given that these parties for politicians are just fronts for backroom deals, and honestly, the sheer amount of money being blown on them is insane. That cash could easily be going toward actual employees or improving services and working conditions. If they actually managed the budget that way, we probably wouldn't have 130 people out on the street right now facing those pathetic severance packages.

Way to go, Maria Nelson12

Maria Nelson12 said:That’s basically how they pour money straight into the government’s pockets through all those various fees and taxes, plus their "charity" work and advertising blitzes. I guess they’re also considered essential for security since they can tap into your communications whenever they feel like it. Then there’s the job market aspect—they directly employ over a thousand people, maybe even another five hundred indirectly. And honestly, they stay relevant because their management is basically just one big, interconnected corporate mafia.

It’s pretty much a given that these parties for politicians are just fronts for backroom deals, and honestly, the sheer amount of money being blown on them is insane. That cash could easily be going toward actual employees or improving services and working conditions. If they actually managed the budget that way, we probably wouldn't have 130 people out on the street right now facing those pathetic severance packages.

When a company like that underperforms, it just helps their competitors grow, because the overall market size doesn't really change based on who's winning. Since this is a foreign-owned service company, the government won't even blink. If the company is as bad as you say, then it honestly doesn't matter if they survive or not.

A company being involved in corruption isn't necessarily tied to throwing parties. They meet with politicians at charity events all the time.

Harold Wright6 said:I definitely look, and honestly, it’s depressing to see how much money goes toward "charity" payouts for people who shouldn't even have jobs in government or any other public service.

There you have it. It seems the entire burden of layoffs is always dumped squarely on our shoulders, alongside the cost of propping up the federal bureaucracy and various public sectors. Instead of this, the government should be implementing actual employment incentives: tax breaks, providing free land for manufacturing ventures, or even establishing tax-free zones in underdeveloped regions of the country. Such moves would ultimately stimulate the economy through increased consumer spending and housing demand.

silvercrane38 said:There you have it. It seems the entire burden of layoffs is always dumped squarely on our shoulders, alongside the cost of propping up the federal bureaucracy and various public sectors. Instead of this, the government should be implementing actual employment incentives: tax breaks, providing free land for manufacturing ventures, or even establishing tax-free zones in underdeveloped regions of the country. Such moves would ultimately stimulate the economy through increased consumer spending and housing demand.

But what does any of that have to do with keeping redundant staff on the payroll?

Harold Wright6 said:But what does any of that have to do with keeping redundant staff on the payroll?

It’s a direct link. It's simple math: if unemployment rises, payroll taxes and various other levies for you and me will inevitably climb right along with it.

silvercrane38 said:It’s a direct link. It's simple math: if unemployment rises, payroll taxes and various other levies for you and me will inevitably climb right along with it.

Exactly! It’s a super simple equation when you look at it that way. 🙄