Spring Break
Blumenthal's interference with AT&T hurts state
Our Opinion
Issue date: 1/28/09 Section: Commentary
As the economy has struggled in recent months, companies across the nation have responded by downsizing and taking measures to increase efficiency. While such layoffs are fiscally sensible - companies that are losing business don't need as many employees - in the last week, the job losses have really hit home here in Connecticut, with AT&T deciding to lay off 400 workers and transfer 60 others to Michigan. Yet here's where things stop making sense: Connecticut's Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, is trying to block these layoffs by claiming that they will result in poor customer service for users who need to use their telephones as lifelines to police and hospitals. Blumenthal's attempt to block the layoffs has been described by the Communication Workers of America Union as an effort to push the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control (DPUC) to do their jobs and regulate the way they're supposed to regulate.
The CWA and Blumenthal need to stop with the nonsense. It doesn't make sense for a company like AT&T - which has lost four million landlines in the past year - to keep the same number of employees. In addition, the 460 employees from Connecticut are not being kicked to the curb and left to starve. Rather, AT&T has offered all of them jobs. The CWA members are upset because the majority of those proffered jobs are not in Connecticut. Well, in this economy, finding a new home - for cheap - is much easier than finding a new job, so the employees should be thankful that AT&T is making every effort to keep them gainfully employed.
Blumenthal's grandstanding poses another problem for Connecticut as well. No businesses will want to come here and set up shop if they think Blumenthal will be able to dictate their hiring practices. Connecticut is already hurting for jobs and has trouble attracting young professionals and new businesses. By crying for stricter regulation of how businesses handle their internal affairs, Blumenthal is creating an even more unwelcoming situation here.
Overall, the CWA looks greedy for trying to block a logical business move that still keeps all of their members employed. In tough times, everyone has to make sacrifices, and the CWA doesn't appear to be willing to do that. Meanwhile, Blumenthal looks foolish for trying to force more regulation onto AT&T. In fact, his proposed solution - using the DPUC to block the layoff - may even be unconstitutional under the commerce clause, which gives the power to regulate interstate business to the United States Congress, not Connecticut's Attorney General. Both Blumenthal and the CWA need to do the right thing for Connecticut and the economy - allow AT&T the freedom to make fiscally responsible decisions.
The CWA and Blumenthal need to stop with the nonsense. It doesn't make sense for a company like AT&T - which has lost four million landlines in the past year - to keep the same number of employees. In addition, the 460 employees from Connecticut are not being kicked to the curb and left to starve. Rather, AT&T has offered all of them jobs. The CWA members are upset because the majority of those proffered jobs are not in Connecticut. Well, in this economy, finding a new home - for cheap - is much easier than finding a new job, so the employees should be thankful that AT&T is making every effort to keep them gainfully employed.
Blumenthal's grandstanding poses another problem for Connecticut as well. No businesses will want to come here and set up shop if they think Blumenthal will be able to dictate their hiring practices. Connecticut is already hurting for jobs and has trouble attracting young professionals and new businesses. By crying for stricter regulation of how businesses handle their internal affairs, Blumenthal is creating an even more unwelcoming situation here.
Overall, the CWA looks greedy for trying to block a logical business move that still keeps all of their members employed. In tough times, everyone has to make sacrifices, and the CWA doesn't appear to be willing to do that. Meanwhile, Blumenthal looks foolish for trying to force more regulation onto AT&T. In fact, his proposed solution - using the DPUC to block the layoff - may even be unconstitutional under the commerce clause, which gives the power to regulate interstate business to the United States Congress, not Connecticut's Attorney General. Both Blumenthal and the CWA need to do the right thing for Connecticut and the economy - allow AT&T the freedom to make fiscally responsible decisions.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
Jess
posted 1/28/09 @ 3:29 PM EST
Does anyone remember that Bluementhal is the one who prevented AT&T from continuing to offer their U-Verse fiber-optic TV services until they applied for another class of operational licenses from the state. (Continued…)
Joseph Sweet
posted 1/28/09 @ 7:58 PM EST
I love how Daily Campus is leading the way in being the most conservative newspaper in CT despite being in a heavily liberal college. AT&T is subject to stricter regulation than most businesses because they are given a monopoly in land line services, and when dealing with unnatural monopolies there needs to be more scrutiny on the service they provide, particularly when AT&T has a terrible record in customer service. (Continued…)
Kim O'Brien
posted 1/30/09 @ 2:41 AM EST
CWA greedy and AT&T exec's poor? CWA represents working people who have and will be hit hard from this crisis much more so than the middle class and the golden parachute crowd. (Continued…)
Post a Comment