CWA Fights A Valiant Battle, But...

[Commentary] Two ways to look at the Communications Workers of America (CWA) strike against Verizon are mirror images of each other:

First: Why should the striking workers have it better than everyone else? Why should they get away with having paid-for health care and time off and all the other things that the company now wants to take away?

Second: Why don't other workers have it as good as the striking workers? Why don't other people have paid-for health care and time off and all the other things that Verizon now wants to take away?

Financially, Verizon is doing well, with more than $30 billion in profits over the last three years on which they have paid no taxes — and even got $1 billion in tax benefits. Verizon wants to do away with paid health care, cutting disability benefits, reducing sick days and holidays, to name just a few items on the bargaining table. Why? In most sectors, there is international competition depressing prices and competition to see who can hire the cheapest overseas labor. But telecommunications is not one of those sectors. The industry has the type of jobs not easily shifted overseas. Maintaining a telecom network and serving customers has to be done by people in the area. Verizon is stuck with American workers and their salaries and benefits.

But with whom is the company concerned about remaining competitive? It has a near-monopoly on landline businesses and could soon find itself in a duopoly on the wireless side of which it now has close to 40% of the business. If any companies are sitting pretty these days, phone companies come the closest. The industry has dominated the regulatory apparatus so that, in the name of “deregulation,” most competition and consumer choice has been eliminated. It has spread sufficient wealth in the legislature to members of both parties so that any attempts to impose any rules that enable competition, fairness or consumer choice are met with immediate denunciations and angry letters with many signatures.

Why, with the company taking such a hostile attitude toward its workers, would the union stroll arm in arm with Verizon (and with AT&T for that matter) through the telecom public policy world supporting policies that hurt consumers? What benefits can they possibly derive from supporting the companies’ efforts to do away with an Internet in which everyone has an equal opportunity to get online? Does the union think that by supporting AT&T’s takeover of T-Mobile that the company will go easier on them when their contracts come up (even as the odds of the deal happening are dropping)? Why does the union defend the companies at every turn, even defending the loss of jobs because the traditional wireline business is fading?

It would be nice if coming out of this strike, and anticipating negotiations with AT&T or other companies, CWA would take a more enlightened stand toward consumers generally, along with concern for union members and jobs. Given the union’s history, however, it’s not likely.