backtop


Print 35 comment(s) - last by sorry dog.. on Sep 1 at 4:07 PM


  (Source: engadget.com)
AT&T has not mentioned where these jobs will be located within the U.S. quite yet, but said the new employees will be able to join AT&T's unionized workforce if the deal wins approval

AT&T has been trying to push its proposed acquisition of T-Mobile since the announcement of the $39 billion deal earlier this year, and now, it's making a promise that aims to help seal this deal -- AT&T will bring thousands of wireless call center jobs back to the U.S. if the purchase wins approval.

In March of this year, AT&T announced that it was purchasing T-Mobile for $39 billion USD. According to AT&T Chairman and CEO Randall Stephenson, the purchase was a move to improve network quality, bring advanced LTE capabilities to users, and strengthen/expand critical infrastructure. He added that it could boost network capacity by as much as 30 percent, which will improve services for data hogs like smartphone users.

"This transaction is very instrumental," said Stephenson. "Virtually on the day you close the deal, getting a 30 percent lift in capacity in New York City: that's a significant improvement in call quality and data throughput."

But the deal has to be approved by the Federal Communications Commission and the Justice Department, and that has been the problem. The U.S. Senate's antitrust committee expressed doubts in regards to the merger, saying that it could only result in price hikes for customers and decreased competition. However, AT&T has received some support from one U.S. state regulator (the Louisiana Public Service Commission) and 11 state attorneys general.

Now, AT&T is promising that it will bring 5,000 wireless call center jobs back to the U.S. if it is allowed to purchase T-Mobile. These jobs are currently outsourced to other countries.

AT&T has not mentioned where these jobs will be located within the U.S. quite yet, but said the new employees will be able to join AT&T's unionized workforce if the deal wins approval.

The wireless carrier added that no jobs will be lost for those already working in U.S.-based wireless call centers, but refused to comment on the number of employees that would remain overseas once the 5,000 employment positions move back to the U.S.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

in writing
By jeepga on 8/31/2011 10:58:29 AM , Rating: 3
Get it in writing, and make sure it says no H1Bs...




RE: in writing
By cjohnson2136 on 8/31/2011 11:04:45 AM , Rating: 3
Plus what about all the T-mobile stores and kiosks that are near at&t stores/kiosks? Won't all those T-mobile employees get the boot?


RE: in writing
By quiksilvr on 8/31/11, Rating: -1
RE: in writing
By mcnabney on 8/31/2011 12:22:05 PM , Rating: 3
No, they will mostly get the boot.

When Verizon acquired Alltel the only locations that remained were those in new markets. Same thing for Sprint/Nextel. Where do you think the cost savings of merging the companies come from?


RE: in writing
By drycrust3 on 8/31/2011 12:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
Since when has logic had anything to do with a takeover? My guess is that if there were 5000 new jobs created in the USA, then they wouldn't be long term jobs, just short term ones, such as might be "created" if you were shifting a filing cabinet from one building and putting them into another.


RE: in writing
By TheRequiem on 8/31/2011 12:57:36 PM , Rating: 2
They'll add 5000 jobs back to the U.S. after they slash and consolidate 80% of T-Mobile's workforce...


RE: in writing
By inperfectdarkness on 8/31/2011 9:33:27 PM , Rating: 2
not only will they be short-term, low-paying jobs; they'll also be eliminating 10,000 other jobs due to "duplication of resources".

no thanks.


RE: in writing
By Flunk on 8/31/11, Rating: -1
RE: in writing
By cjohnson2136 on 8/31/2011 11:06:38 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
If they locate in Georgia with its $5.15 minimum wage


How is that possible when federal minimum wage is 7.25?


RE: in writing
By FITCamaro on 8/31/2011 11:19:30 AM , Rating: 1
It's not.


RE: in writing
By cjohnson2136 on 8/31/2011 11:37:04 AM , Rating: 2
How is it ot according to the Department of Labor the federal minimum wage was set to 7.25 on July 24, 2009

http://www.dol.gov/elaws/faq/esa/flsa/001.htm


RE: in writing
By ebakke on 8/31/2011 12:50:56 PM , Rating: 2
You misinterpreted his response. FIT was agreeing with you and saying Georgia's minimum wage isn't $5.15. He was not saying the federal minimum wage isn't $7.25.


RE: in writing
By FITCamaro on 9/1/2011 7:34:28 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you.


RE: in writing
By Flunk on 8/31/2011 11:48:33 AM , Rating: 2
Some states have minimum wages lower than the federal minimum wage, because the fed doesn't actually enforce their minimum wage laws some shady corporations set up shop in these states and pay their workers less than the federal minimum wage.

It's similar to how medical marijuana is legal by California law but not by federal law. Fun huh?


RE: in writing
By cjohnson2136 on 8/31/2011 11:52:32 AM , Rating: 2
Ok but technically the minimum wage is still 7.25. I feel like a small company could get away with not paying but not a company as big as AT&T.


RE: in writing
By MrBlastman on 8/31/2011 12:33:47 PM , Rating: 2
Before Lincoln, it was widely recognized that the States were powerful in their laws and under the Constitution, were rightly so. After Lincoln, it became recognized that the Federal Government was becoming the dominant force as was _never_ intended under the Constitution.

The disparity these days is just how ridiculously overpowered the Federal system has become. More States need to begin exercising their muscle that they are guaranteed under our great document.


RE: in writing
By Reclaimer77 on 8/31/2011 3:02:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yup. The South was right. Lincoln was a tyrant who waged war on his own people and laid the foundation for the nearly totalitarian Government we now have.


RE: in writing
By FITCamaro on 9/1/2011 7:37:24 AM , Rating: 1
/facepalm

And California gets away with medical marijuana because the federal government doesn't enforce drug laws. It skirts the edges of legality. Marijuana is a legal treatment for some cancers.

But if you think states and the federal government doesn't enforce minimum wage laws you're sadly mistaken. The only people making under minimum wage in this country are those who shouldn't be here in the first place.


RE: in writing
By sorry dog on 9/1/2011 4:07:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only people making under minimum wage in this country are those who shouldn't be here in the first place.


I dunno about that...

I bet there are plenty of "salaried" workers that make less when you calculate per hour, and especially lately I've heard about plenty if small business owners are making less or going without paychecks entirely.


RE: in writing
By Jeffk464 on 8/31/2011 12:31:21 PM , Rating: 2
short term, in the long run there will probably be more jobs by having two individual companies.


"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki