|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 27 2017 02:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2017 02:16 IyMoon wrote:On December 27 2017 02:12 Danglars wrote:On December 27 2017 02:00 Mohdoo wrote:On December 27 2017 01:54 Danglars wrote:On December 27 2017 01:46 Sent. wrote:On December 27 2017 01:17 Mohdoo wrote:
Women voting was a "cultural issue" to conservatives
Interracial marriage was a "cultural issue" to conservatives
Gay marriage was a "cultural issue" to conservatives.
Every time, they insist on adopting unsustainable positions. It's their own fault for constantly pulling this shit. Everyone could see a mile away all these issues I listed would eventually go the correct way. It's their own damn fault for their stupid culture war. Lumping modern conservatives with those who were against interracial marriage is like saying every liberal in this thread is a communist who wants to outlaw property, inheritance and the right to raise your own kids. Best me to it. Women’s suffrage and interracial marriage? Let’s talk about how liberals are secretly mad that the proletariat revolution isn’t underway. Never understood the culture war and will never understand Trump. Which blue states fought to preserve communism? The comparison is garbage. Listing things red States actively fought for recently is entirely different from listing ideology. Many blue states also fought to preserve segregation and vestiges of slavery. You’re jumping off a cliff trying to justify idiotic conceptions of the culture war. I think you know exactly what dave meant so stop trolling. Which ones? I would actually like to read up on that Check out the Southern Democrats “Solid South” during post-civil war reconstruction. Systematic efforts at disenfranchisement were present in all those states. Pick at will. Iirc Louisiana and NC were first stated with grandfather clauses.
I dont consider democrats of today to be the same as dems from that time. That section either left or was expelled from the party.
|
On December 27 2017 00:50 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2017 21:54 iamthedave wrote:
To the discussion of a few pages now: As an outsider, I think part of the issue is the American left thinks it 'won' the culture war. It's a message I hear frequently, but it's not one I ever really bought. Left wing media certainly seems to dominate in conventional circles, but the American right simply re-invented itself via talk radio, and went a bit more underground. The left largely made right wing talking points into impolite public speech, and that made it harder to actually talk to them, which happened as a result of assuming they'd 'lost' and would slowly fade out over time. Even with Trump in power and an obvious right wing surge happening, that mentality remains. The left thinks it's won the larger war even if it lost this battle, and so the conversation isn't important or even relevant anymore. It's just a matter of time.
Or so I see it, anyway, from observing a lot of these arguments back and forth over the past few hundred pages. For my own money, while I'm left leaning and disagree with a lot of what Danglars/Daunt say, I don't see anything there that's impossible to talk about or even that shocking. Maybe that bit about Africa. That was a bit of a shock.
But in the UK we never had a side 'win' the culture war. The closest was probably Thatcherite Britain and then Blair Britain, where the right and left respectively had a long time in the sun. But UK politics isn't really about 'winning'. At the heart, both sides are fighting to help lead the country, not win a war of ideology. It seems to me a lot of the time that in the US your parties want to win the Presidency so they can say 'OUR IDEOLOGY IS BEST, YAY!' and give little thought to leading/running the country, hence the scorched-earth nature of your politics, where both sides paint the other as cartoon monsters, creating the impression to any sane person that your entire government is led by corrupt, self-interested arseholes. I feel if running the country effectively was really at the heart of their intention they'd be a lot more respectful about their opponents and actually consider working with them instead of both sides strategising government shutdowns, bloc-voting to block as much legislation as possible, and so on and so forth.
All of which is absurd to me. Aren't your senators - regardless of party - meant to be working mostly for the benefit of their constituents anyway?
All the relitigation of the 2016 election misses a pretty important point: While Clinton was a bad candidate, there's no guarantee Sanders would have done much better. I think Trump would have gotten under his skin a lot easier than Clinton, and in America, where the Communist has always been the bigger bogeyman than the Fascist, Sanders has a giant target on his chest, face, and back given how much further left he is than most Democratic candidates. I'm not convinced Sanders could have beat Trump, and the DNC obviously felt the same way. As much as Sanders might have motivated more left and centre people to get to the polls (and young people, obviously), it's equally possible that the threat of a communist takeover of America - which I'm 100% sure would have been the Fox spin - would have done the same thing for the GOP.
EDIT: Not trying to pedestal the UK's political situation or discourse, mind. We have plenty of problems there as well, they're just not as pronounced, in my opinion, as the ones in the US. Brexit has certainly exposed a lot of underlying issues in both parties and our national political discourse. That is the theory, but in practice it plays out something like this. X amount of the voting population in America actually votes. Those who vote tend to be on the extremes of left and right. If you want to get / stay elected you have to please those people more than you have to please people who don't vote. Those sides see winning as more important than being fair to everyone. They tend to see their side as right and the other side as wrong, and with that binary choice there is no grounds for compromise.
And it's all a result of first past the post. If there was actually more than two parties to choose between, there would be more room for nuance instead of the right vs left mentality
|
On December 27 2017 02:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2017 02:16 IyMoon wrote:On December 27 2017 02:12 Danglars wrote:On December 27 2017 02:00 Mohdoo wrote:On December 27 2017 01:54 Danglars wrote:On December 27 2017 01:46 Sent. wrote:On December 27 2017 01:17 Mohdoo wrote:
Women voting was a "cultural issue" to conservatives
Interracial marriage was a "cultural issue" to conservatives
Gay marriage was a "cultural issue" to conservatives.
Every time, they insist on adopting unsustainable positions. It's their own fault for constantly pulling this shit. Everyone could see a mile away all these issues I listed would eventually go the correct way. It's their own damn fault for their stupid culture war. Lumping modern conservatives with those who were against interracial marriage is like saying every liberal in this thread is a communist who wants to outlaw property, inheritance and the right to raise your own kids. Best me to it. Women’s suffrage and interracial marriage? Let’s talk about how liberals are secretly mad that the proletariat revolution isn’t underway. Never understood the culture war and will never understand Trump. Which blue states fought to preserve communism? The comparison is garbage. Listing things red States actively fought for recently is entirely different from listing ideology. Many blue states also fought to preserve segregation and vestiges of slavery. You’re jumping off a cliff trying to justify idiotic conceptions of the culture war. I think you know exactly what dave meant so stop trolling. Which ones? I would actually like to read up on that Check out the Southern Democrats “Solid South” during post-civil war reconstruction. Systematic efforts at disenfranchisement were present in all those states. Pick at will. Iirc Louisiana and NC were first stated with grandfather clauses.
You do know democrats were the conservatives while the republicans were the liberals back then right? It's not the same political landscape at all.
|
On December 27 2017 02:38 MyTHicaL wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/26/us-to-make-at-least-285m-cut-to-un-budget-after-vote-on-jerusalemI can't see if you guys have already addressed this but I find this reaction to be pathetic.. childish or deluded even. Also it, imo, opens the doors for other countries to gain greater influence within the UN which could be great or terrible :|. I suppose that this may be the wrong thread since it technically is US foreign policy politics and not domestic but these types of decisions are destroying what little current credibility the US possesses internationally.
It was mentioned, everyone nodded to each other and agreed it was retarded, and moved on from.
also: US foreign politics is still US politics, so I don't see the problem. Moreover US foreign politics concerns the entire world, which is why this thread is so lively to begin with in.
|
On December 27 2017 02:55 Excludos wrote:It was mentioned, everyone nodded to each other and agreed it was retarded, and moved on from. also: US foreign politics is still US politics, so I don't see the problem. Moreover US foreign politics concerns the entire world, which is why this thread is so lively to begin with in.
My bad  .
|
On December 27 2017 02:16 LegalLord wrote:
The sad thing about this is that for all intents and purposes it seems like folk like Mohdoo are 100% serious about their absurd characterization of anyone and everyone they don't agree with as just the descendant of every historical bad person they don't like. I suppose this is just an inevitable reality of people who are so convinced that they are going to win in the end (a position that has been directly stated) and that every "loss" is a temporary setback against the forces of evil.
You're confusing my argument. I'm saying the whole idea of "under attack for my culture" and other "culture war" stuff, it is largely the result of stubbornly trying to hold on to outdated philosophies, even when the future is in plain site. You can't tell me conservatives on this very board weren't willing to delay nationwide legalization of gay marriage another year. Gay marriage was the perfect example of how conservatism commits to unwinnable fights for as long as possible. It is social obstruction and is a big reason things get so tense. When the tides of society are clearly going one direction and have an extremely guaranteed conclusion, social conservatives have fought tooth and nail to push things out just a few more years.
|
On December 27 2017 02:38 MyTHicaL wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/26/us-to-make-at-least-285m-cut-to-un-budget-after-vote-on-jerusalemI can't see if you guys have already addressed this but I find this reaction to be pathetic.. childish or deluded even. Also it, imo, opens the doors for other countries to gain greater influence within the UN which could be great or terrible :|. I suppose that this may be the wrong thread since it technically is US foreign policy politics and not domestic but these types of decisions are destroying what little current credibility the US possesses internationally.
Are you saying the worlds UN ambassadors might vote worse than 128-5 to assert a right to tell the US where to put its embassy after this small cutback? I’m with Nicki Haley on this one. As an aside, withdrawing our right to place embassies where we wish (host country permitting) to pursue a phantasm of credibility ... do you know how stupid that sounds?
|
On December 27 2017 03:01 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2017 02:16 LegalLord wrote:
The sad thing about this is that for all intents and purposes it seems like folk like Mohdoo are 100% serious about their absurd characterization of anyone and everyone they don't agree with as just the descendant of every historical bad person they don't like. I suppose this is just an inevitable reality of people who are so convinced that they are going to win in the end (a position that has been directly stated) and that every "loss" is a temporary setback against the forces of evil. You're confusing my argument. I'm saying the whole idea of "under attack for my culture" and other "culture war" stuff, it is largely the result of stubbornly trying to hold on to outdated philosophies, even when the future is in plain site. You can't tell me conservatives on this very board weren't willing to delay nationwide legalization of gay marriage another year. Gay marriage was the perfect example of how conservatism commits to unwinnable fights for as long as possible. It is social obstruction and is a big reason things get so tense. When the tides of society are clearly going one direction and have an extremely guaranteed conclusion, social conservatives have fought tooth and nail to push things out just a few more years.
The absurd part was culture wars including women’s suffrage and miscegenation laws. Stop playing games jumping from ludicrous assertions to normal ones whenever you feel your argument slipping away.
|
On December 27 2017 03:18 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2017 03:01 Mohdoo wrote:On December 27 2017 02:16 LegalLord wrote:
The sad thing about this is that for all intents and purposes it seems like folk like Mohdoo are 100% serious about their absurd characterization of anyone and everyone they don't agree with as just the descendant of every historical bad person they don't like. I suppose this is just an inevitable reality of people who are so convinced that they are going to win in the end (a position that has been directly stated) and that every "loss" is a temporary setback against the forces of evil. You're confusing my argument. I'm saying the whole idea of "under attack for my culture" and other "culture war" stuff, it is largely the result of stubbornly trying to hold on to outdated philosophies, even when the future is in plain site. You can't tell me conservatives on this very board weren't willing to delay nationwide legalization of gay marriage another year. Gay marriage was the perfect example of how conservatism commits to unwinnable fights for as long as possible. It is social obstruction and is a big reason things get so tense. When the tides of society are clearly going one direction and have an extremely guaranteed conclusion, social conservatives have fought tooth and nail to push things out just a few more years. The absurd part was culture wars including women’s suffrage and miscegenation laws. Stop playing games jumping from ludicrous assertions to normal ones whenever you feel your argument slipping away.
Just read what people were writing and on what basis they were opposing women’s vote at the time. They thought it was a threat to organized family, and all the same bs we hear from the right on non issues like gay marriage. Of course it’s culture war.
|
On December 27 2017 04:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2017 03:18 Danglars wrote:On December 27 2017 03:01 Mohdoo wrote:On December 27 2017 02:16 LegalLord wrote:
The sad thing about this is that for all intents and purposes it seems like folk like Mohdoo are 100% serious about their absurd characterization of anyone and everyone they don't agree with as just the descendant of every historical bad person they don't like. I suppose this is just an inevitable reality of people who are so convinced that they are going to win in the end (a position that has been directly stated) and that every "loss" is a temporary setback against the forces of evil. You're confusing my argument. I'm saying the whole idea of "under attack for my culture" and other "culture war" stuff, it is largely the result of stubbornly trying to hold on to outdated philosophies, even when the future is in plain site. You can't tell me conservatives on this very board weren't willing to delay nationwide legalization of gay marriage another year. Gay marriage was the perfect example of how conservatism commits to unwinnable fights for as long as possible. It is social obstruction and is a big reason things get so tense. When the tides of society are clearly going one direction and have an extremely guaranteed conclusion, social conservatives have fought tooth and nail to push things out just a few more years. The absurd part was culture wars including women’s suffrage and miscegenation laws. Stop playing games jumping from ludicrous assertions to normal ones whenever you feel your argument slipping away. Just read what people were writing and on what basis they were opposing women’s vote at the time. They thought it was a threat to organized family, and all the same bs we hear from the right on non issues like gay marriage. Of course it’s culture war.
People use similar sounding arguments on two different issues, so we can connect them? To think that we waste all this time examining whether the argument supports the conclusion and is applicable to the situation. You’ve saved us all a lot of time wasted on critical thinking.
|
On December 27 2017 03:17 Danglars wrote:Are you saying the worlds UN ambassadors might vote worse than 128-5 to assert a right to tell the US where to put its embassy after this small cutback? I’m with Nicki Haley on this one. As an aside, withdrawing our right to place embassies where we wish (host country permitting) to pursue a phantasm of credibility ... do you know how stupid that sounds? https://twitter.com/nikkihaley/status/943983030565330944
Haley obviously feels like the whole world has disrespected her country.
I would be examining why they would do that, instead of throwing my toys out of the pram.
I don't know why anyone would be surprised that US foreign policy has degenerated to a series of tantrums though. You guys elected these idiots.
In my minds eye now I can imagine the looks on the faces of Trump's staff as the UN vote came in. They could hear Trump in the Oval Office, punching the table and shouting "We're going to sanction the WHOLE WORLD."
|
On December 27 2017 04:30 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2017 03:17 Danglars wrote:On December 27 2017 02:38 MyTHicaL wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/26/us-to-make-at-least-285m-cut-to-un-budget-after-vote-on-jerusalemI can't see if you guys have already addressed this but I find this reaction to be pathetic.. childish or deluded even. Also it, imo, opens the doors for other countries to gain greater influence within the UN which could be great or terrible :|. I suppose that this may be the wrong thread since it technically is US foreign policy politics and not domestic but these types of decisions are destroying what little current credibility the US possesses internationally. Are you saying the worlds UN ambassadors might vote worse than 128-5 to assert a right to tell the US where to put its embassy after this small cutback? I’m with Nicki Haley on this one. As an aside, withdrawing our right to place embassies where we wish (host country permitting) to pursue a phantasm of credibility ... do you know how stupid that sounds? https://twitter.com/nikkihaley/status/943983030565330944 Haley obviously feels like the whole world has disrespected her country. I would be examining why they would do that, instead of throwing my toys out of the pram. I don't know why anyone would be surprised that US foreign policy has degenerated to a series of tantrums though. You guys elected these idiots.
90-0 vote in the Senate. President Trump did it. Really, a bipartisan consensus supported the action Trump put into effect. Say what you want about duplicitous Senators voting without seriously expecting to be held accountable, but this was America. Not wild politicians.
Similar view if the UN thinks the establishment of an embassy can be declared null and void and rescinded by vote of the UN. UN Representatives declare they’re a joke institution that wants crazier leadership (rejects current leadership). Find your own way, it’s obvious these pathetic “recover what little credibility it holds” are basically offering zilch in exchange for undermining of national sovereignty and bullying.
|
On December 27 2017 02:51 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2017 02:36 Danglars wrote:On December 27 2017 02:16 IyMoon wrote:On December 27 2017 02:12 Danglars wrote:On December 27 2017 02:00 Mohdoo wrote:On December 27 2017 01:54 Danglars wrote:On December 27 2017 01:46 Sent. wrote:On December 27 2017 01:17 Mohdoo wrote:
Women voting was a "cultural issue" to conservatives
Interracial marriage was a "cultural issue" to conservatives
Gay marriage was a "cultural issue" to conservatives.
Every time, they insist on adopting unsustainable positions. It's their own fault for constantly pulling this shit. Everyone could see a mile away all these issues I listed would eventually go the correct way. It's their own damn fault for their stupid culture war. Lumping modern conservatives with those who were against interracial marriage is like saying every liberal in this thread is a communist who wants to outlaw property, inheritance and the right to raise your own kids. Best me to it. Women’s suffrage and interracial marriage? Let’s talk about how liberals are secretly mad that the proletariat revolution isn’t underway. Never understood the culture war and will never understand Trump. Which blue states fought to preserve communism? The comparison is garbage. Listing things red States actively fought for recently is entirely different from listing ideology. Many blue states also fought to preserve segregation and vestiges of slavery. You’re jumping off a cliff trying to justify idiotic conceptions of the culture war. I think you know exactly what dave meant so stop trolling. Which ones? I would actually like to read up on that Check out the Southern Democrats “Solid South” during post-civil war reconstruction. Systematic efforts at disenfranchisement were present in all those states. Pick at will. Iirc Louisiana and NC were first stated with grandfather clauses. You do know democrats were the conservatives while the republicans were the liberals back then right? It's not the same political landscape at all.
I forget how conservative Social security and the new deal was sometimes.
|
On December 27 2017 05:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2017 04:30 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 27 2017 03:17 Danglars wrote:On December 27 2017 02:38 MyTHicaL wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/26/us-to-make-at-least-285m-cut-to-un-budget-after-vote-on-jerusalemI can't see if you guys have already addressed this but I find this reaction to be pathetic.. childish or deluded even. Also it, imo, opens the doors for other countries to gain greater influence within the UN which could be great or terrible :|. I suppose that this may be the wrong thread since it technically is US foreign policy politics and not domestic but these types of decisions are destroying what little current credibility the US possesses internationally. Are you saying the worlds UN ambassadors might vote worse than 128-5 to assert a right to tell the US where to put its embassy after this small cutback? I’m with Nicki Haley on this one. As an aside, withdrawing our right to place embassies where we wish (host country permitting) to pursue a phantasm of credibility ... do you know how stupid that sounds? https://twitter.com/nikkihaley/status/943983030565330944 Haley obviously feels like the whole world has disrespected her country. I would be examining why they would do that, instead of throwing my toys out of the pram. I don't know why anyone would be surprised that US foreign policy has degenerated to a series of tantrums though. You guys elected these idiots. 90-0 vote in the Senate. President Trump did it. Really, a bipartisan consensus supported the action Trump put into effect. Say what you want about duplicitous Senators voting without seriously expecting to be held accountable, but this was America. Not wild politicians. Similar view if the UN thinks the establishment of an embassy can be declared null and void and rescinded by vote of the UN. UN Representatives declare they’re a joke institution that wants crazier leadership (rejects current leadership). Find your own way, it’s obvious these pathetic “recover what little credibility it holds” are basically offering zilch in exchange for undermining of national sovereignty and bullying.
Isn't one of the most important cornerstones of the new world order after WW2 that we no longer do wars? Thus putting an embassy in a place conquered in a war legitimises that war and its results. Going directly against what the UN stands for. It doesn't matter if a person like Trump or Franklin D. Roosevelt does it, it should still be censured by the UN since it goes against its basic principles.
|
You must have missed several wars the US started since WW2...
|
On December 27 2017 05:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2017 04:30 Jockmcplop wrote:On December 27 2017 03:17 Danglars wrote:On December 27 2017 02:38 MyTHicaL wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/26/us-to-make-at-least-285m-cut-to-un-budget-after-vote-on-jerusalemI can't see if you guys have already addressed this but I find this reaction to be pathetic.. childish or deluded even. Also it, imo, opens the doors for other countries to gain greater influence within the UN which could be great or terrible :|. I suppose that this may be the wrong thread since it technically is US foreign policy politics and not domestic but these types of decisions are destroying what little current credibility the US possesses internationally. Are you saying the worlds UN ambassadors might vote worse than 128-5 to assert a right to tell the US where to put its embassy after this small cutback? I’m with Nicki Haley on this one. As an aside, withdrawing our right to place embassies where we wish (host country permitting) to pursue a phantasm of credibility ... do you know how stupid that sounds? https://twitter.com/nikkihaley/status/943983030565330944 Haley obviously feels like the whole world has disrespected her country. I would be examining why they would do that, instead of throwing my toys out of the pram. I don't know why anyone would be surprised that US foreign policy has degenerated to a series of tantrums though. You guys elected these idiots. 90-0 vote in the Senate. President Trump did it. Really, a bipartisan consensus supported the action Trump put into effect. Say what you want about duplicitous Senators voting without seriously expecting to be held accountable, but this was America. Not wild politicians. Similar view if the UN thinks the establishment of an embassy can be declared null and void and rescinded by vote of the UN. UN Representatives declare they’re a joke institution that wants crazier leadership (rejects current leadership). Find your own way, it’s obvious these pathetic “recover what little credibility it holds” are basically offering zilch in exchange for undermining of national sovereignty and bullying.
Bullying?
You're really calling it bullying.
The US just made a unilateral decision that will seriously effect world geopolitics and when the world said they didn't like it started threatening people and withholding money, and you want to talk about how your country is being bullied.
The UN has the right to make symbolic votes such as this. The vote isn't in any way binding and doesn't carry specific legal ramifications AFAIK so your claims of bullying and rescinding the US's sovereign rights are just false and hypocritical.
|
the UN has lost all credibility to me since they started the EU. NATO is the trade group that actually decides trade policy, the EU is a currency union, all of the member nations have their own armies so that's out, so that leaves the UN with..... what exactly? I guess I don't know WHAT they are in charge of there. No one has mentioned the League of Nations either because they were also a group that had no power
|
On December 27 2017 06:24 A3th3r wrote:
the UN has lost all credibility to me since they started the EU. NATO is the trade group that actually decides trade policy, the EU is a currency union, all of the member nations have their own armies so that's out, so that leaves the UN with..... what exactly? I guess I don't know WHAT they are in charge of there. No one has mentioned the League of Nations either because they were also a group that had no power
NATO isn't about trade at all, what're you talking about?
and while the UN may lack credibility, the existence of the EU doesn't really change much of anything with regards to the UN.
|
On December 27 2017 06:24 A3th3r wrote:
the UN has lost all credibility to me since they started the EU. NATO is the trade group that actually decides trade policy, the EU is a currency union, all of the member nations have their own armies so that's out, so that leaves the UN with..... what exactly? I guess I don't know WHAT they are in charge of there. No one has mentioned the League of Nations either because they were also a group that had no power
As far as I know the UN is the only organisation that can legally authorise a military conflict by the peace keeping actions. Super powers ignore that but it is the basis of its relevance and the reason for its existence. If it keeps being ignored then the UN doesn't have a real reason for existence but on paper it is a great institution for making the average persons life better with it than without it. (The US has less than 10% of the global population and can thus not be counted as the average people in many ways.)
Pretty much anything that decreases international wars will improve people's standard of living. Recently the UN has also focused a lot on stopping genocides where it gets enough support to do so. Both things making it so people and infrastructure survive to then enable trade and wealth.
|
AT&T plans to lay off and fire more than a thousand workers starting early next year, according to local reports.
Across the Midwest, an estimated 600 workers were notified they were being laid off by the company on December 16, a week before AT&T announced it was doling out $1,000 bonuses to 200,000 of its employees in celebration of the Republican Party’s tax overhaul.
The telecommunications giant told the Chicago Tribune in a statement that the most of the affected workers are from its landline and other legacy service sectors, but the company did not say how many workers total would still be employed in 2018.
Technology improvements are driving higher efficiencies, and there are some areas where demand for our legacy services continues to decline, and we’re adjusting our workforce in some of those areas as we continue to align our workforce with the changing needs of the business. Many of the affected employees have a job offer guarantee that ensures they’ll be offered another job with the company, and we’ll work to find other jobs for as many of them as possible.
The announcement came days after the New York Post reported that the company “pink-slipped more than 700 DirecTV home installers.”
On Friday, the Post also reported that AT&T has recently laid off “215 high-skilled technician jobs in nine Southern states” and plans to fire nearly 700 workers in Texas and Missouri beginning in February.
Union representatives expressed concern and resentment toward the company.
“How can you lay people off and then give them $1,000 and say that there’s going to be more jobs available? I wish someone could tell me how that’s possible because I have to explain that to my members, and right now at this time of year, this is a difficult pill to swallow,” Joseph Blanco, president of Local 6360 Communication Workers of America Union in Kansas City, told Fox 4 on Thursday.
Randall Stephenson, CEO of AT&T, said in a statement that the GOP’s tax bill would improve the country’s economy and the company’s financial prospects.
“Congress, working closely with the president, took a monumental step to bring taxes paid by U.S. businesses in line with the rest of the industrialized world. This tax reform will drive economic growth and create good-paying jobs,” AT&T chief executive Randall Stephenson said, according to CNBC.
Last year, senior executives at AT&T told The New York Times that “shrinking the [company's] workforce by 30 percent is not out of the question.”
As reported by Reuters, AT&T is vying to acquire media conglomerate Time Warner Inc., but the Justice Department sued to prevent the $85.4 billion acquisition in November for fears that AT&T might charge rival networks “hundreds of millions of dollars more per year” for Time Warner’s catalog of movies and T.V. channels if the merger would stand.
Soon after the company announced it would give $200 million worth of bonuses, President Donald Trump praised the move as an indicator of how the tax bill could benefit American workers.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
