Verizon says to shed 10,400 jobs by mid next year
reuters.com
reuters.com
"we're about to grow a ton, better cut 10k jobs to maximize those gains."
that just sounds so... weird to me.
It makes perfect sense. T-Mobile basically bought up all the spectrum in the last round of bidding because they got a $4B breakup fee from AT&T as part of AT&T's failed acquisition. That has put all the other U.S. carriers on the defensive, because if they can't win a significant percentage of the 5G spectrum then they're going to be out of business.
So yeah, this is a hard purchase for them, especially since they also have $209 B in liabilities already.
For significant business purposes, both Verizon and AT&T could borrow $40b easily. Whether for an acquisition or critical spectrum buy. They both have plenty of borrowing capacity despite being highly leveraged (it'll very likely end badly one day in the future).
That's a significant chunk of their workforce! I suspect Verizon will quietly be hiring thousands of people from places where they can legally pay them less than these 10+ thousand.
The working conditions in call-centers or guys doing installation & maintenance tend to be absolutely horrendous across the board.
With such a large cut it would be weird to be rejected, I would feel an awkward mix of jealousy and loss to go back to work afterwards.
"You're too valuable to let go! Best yet is you don't have all those pesky coworkers!"
Whatever leftover slop the company feeds you from the remains of your coworkers won't have that satisfying flavor.
Check out where job gains in the US were in November: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
Healthcare added +32k jobs, the majority of which were ambulance drivers/EMS jobs
Manufacturing added +27k jobs, mainly in chemicals and heavy metals
Transportation and warehousing added + 25k jobs, mainly in package delivery and warehouse work
Business services added +32k jobs
All other sectors remained largely unchanged
I don't think a 50YO radio engineer at Verizon is going to be happy retraining to be an EMS or package delivery courier. Labor, especially older and higher paid (non management) positions, is not in the best position right now despite the record low unemployment rate
But if you applied for a layoff and didn't get it, isn't that exactly what you want? And in the meantime you get to make more. It's a win-win!
From what I've heard from amigos working for big ISPs, you can often get 3-6 months of salary, and if you have decent skills (i.e. you've got job options) then it's often a paid vacation while you shop around for other gigs.
Meanwhile if you stay you know there is great acrimony ahead, big changes, lots of clueless newbies coming in, and potentially a crazy-high workload until the dust finally settles.
Why stick around when you can chill for a month, burn one-hitters until your homie at CenturyLink hooks it up, and bone up on certs or skills.
The people who are left have to do more work and are less likely to get nice severance packages during the next round.
Anecdotally for key skills "radio planners" competitors where known to ask what your redundancy payment would be and offer a golden hello to match an dwe are talking > £100,000 15 years ago
It took senior people making 90-120 base and laid them off to employ (me and others) at 47-60k base salary in Massachusetts.
Then after 3 years, they laid us college kids off to employ even lower paid fresh graduates in Austin and San Antonio, because Texas cut them an even better deal than MA did I believe.
That people are making the choice - and many don't seem to mind doing it, makes this quite a different thing than a regular layoff.
Apparently churn has been high, and people leaving their jobs voluntarily is in some ways a good sign for the economy. They certainly don't do that when times are bad.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2018/10/05/verizon...
Also why would a brand new network deployment require any less head count? I assume they will just hire new workers when the uptake in 5G begins in earnest?
Probably at lower wages to boot.
For consumers that would be great and I’m sure other carriers would follow. If they do Comcast will suffer and millions of consumers will have a choice of residential broadband vs. only one player.
Thus I wonder if these job cuts are happening mostly in their wireline business that’s unionized?
It's also worth noting that Verizon is also the most expensive wireless carrier out there by a pretty good margin. I only use them because when I'm on road trips, they're often the only provider I get signal with. If I were just in town, I'd probably switch to a lower cost carrier, and rely on wifi more.
What amazes me is some working people will continue to vote this way even though it keeps failing. I guarantee there will be more tax cuts sold in the very near future, and the same people will buy into it. Some people never learn.
It's hard to learn when your sole source of news is Fox News.
It's not even that Fox News is an outlier, the fault is ad supported news media. What do you think will happen when a politician comes along that threatens the million dollar ad accounts from finance and health industries through policies that reduce those institutions influence? Chomsky was right (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent).
Eventually you end up with an anemic government that overspends on things that don't work and ignores all the social programs that the government put in place to prevent history from repeating.
its their money though. its the government taking the money.
The national deficit is the highest it's been since the recession though, and growing faster than before.
At least during the recession when our tax money was given to corporations, there were strings attached. Now it's all stock buybacks to fight the shrinking market, brought on by the stupid trade war.
It's too early to imply a reliable correlation (not even mentioning causation), but surely something to watch after...
Michigan's unemployment is the lowest it's been since records have been kept: https://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/21325
Stock buybacks [1] done with these tax cuts, enriching shareholders, does little to stoke economic demand or benefit the middle class [2]. More likely, cheap, loose credit is what has allowed the music to carry on.
[1] https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/10/investing/stock-buybacks-re... (Tax cut triggers $437 billion explosion of stock buybacks)
[2] https://www.npr.org/2017/12/19/571754894/charts-see-how-much... (CHARTS: See How Much Of GOP Tax Cuts Will Go To The Middle Class)
At no point was that ever insinuated. The simple idea is that the tax cuts were sold as a way to give companies financial resources to boost salaries and hire new people. Well they got their tax cuts, why are they doing the opposite of what the tax cuts were supposed to do?
Maybe it's because the tax cuts were never going to boost salaries and increase hiring. You have to be pretty deluded to come to the conclusion my comment was blaming the layoffs on the tax cuts.
Then when is the meaning of the parent comment?
> why are they doing the opposite of what the tax cuts were supposed to do?
I'm curious what news you're reading or consuming.
Wages are up 3.1% YoY (biggest increase in 10 years) and unemployment lowest since 1969: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/31/wages-and-salaries-jump-by-3...
2.7 Million more full-time jobs since January 1, when the tax cuts went into effect.
>Real average hourly earnings increased 0.7 percent, seasonally adjusted, from October 2017 to October 2018.
This is the parent comment, in its entirety:
> I'm so glad we passed those corporate tax cuts that created all those jobs and helped provide for all those raises everyone got....
If that doesn't count as insinuation, then nothing does.
Are you serious man? Why be so dishonest? It's clear as day that that's what you were insinuating. Why lie like this?
I don't need to ask everyone in the thread, polluting the thread. I'm asking why you have made several statements in this thread insinuating the corporate tax cut has benefited the economy, with no evidence. My comment includes citations. Bring data, not feelings or unsubstantiated opinions.
It is not a weird lament; it is calling out the lies of trickle down economics.
Stock buybacks don't 'enrich' anyone. Money that is owned by investors goes from 'inside the company' to 'outside' and it 's superficially a net neutral transaction.
What those buy backs do do however is free up capital to be used in more intelligent ways than can be used by the single entity, in this case Verizon, who may not have any great ways to invest it.
Tax cuts probably have not directly affected companies just yet, but the signalling value of it, and that Trump is believed to be a 'pro business' guy (minus trade wars) is at least partly buyoing the economy by providing a dose of faith.
Though stocks are staggering a little because there's fear of no more upside ... there's no real fear yet as no reason for anything to burst. Though a major China trade war - or - a serious setback in China could make a serious correction.
Yes it will make things more expensive, it will probably also cycle a faster upswing in demands for higher pay (also well overdue). But things will balance out in the end. My larger hope is to see some of the more overt corporatism recede quite a bit. Particularly IP terms and reform.
But it's been a 'frog in warming to boiling water' type scenario.
By that I mean - the protectionism, corruption, IP theft etc. has been going on forever - it's just that we didn't care.
Actually - we didn't mind - because a backwards mess of a poor economy might want to do 'whatever it takes' to move forward.
Everyone (well most) was very happy to see China come out of the doldrums. It's better for everyone, generally.
But now that they are reaching for advanced economy status ... the 'issues' become ever more apparent.
I don't like Trump one bit, I find him kind of nauseating in his demeanor - and - I'm not even sure his manner of approach to the 'war' is right.
BUT - 100% of politicians are otherwise incapable of standing up to China. Ironically, it just mike take a loose-cannon douche-bag to do it.
'The West' speaks with 1000 voices: CEOs, NGO leaders, politicians, bureaucrats, federal/state, different countries within federal entities (i.e. EU), heads of Universities, research establishments.
China speaks with 'one voice' and they have a plan, which can actually be carried out.
So if anyone tries to stand up to them, China can scare that 'little individual' with all sorts of things, and by 'little individual' I even mean heads of state.
But ironically, in totality, Western powers do have the upper hand, both because of the direction of trade, but also because of the size of economies, sophistication, all sorts of other reasons.
Example: Trudeau in Canada will mollify Chinese and would be afraid to do anything because China could threaten to not buy Canadian commodities. But here's the thing: they are commodities! So if China stops buying hardwood from B.C. and starts buying it from elsewhere, then as prices receded in Canada and prices increase 'elsewhere' - other buyers come to B.C. for hardwood.
China buying a commodity is like them scooping water out of a river -> it doesn't matter who buys what, the aggregate demand is the same.
But the interim calamity and fear from China walking away will push Canadian CEO's to make Trudeau cede whatever to China.
As an example.
NPR just had an interview with the Robert Lighthizer [1] who talks about the fact China has been saying they'll 'do things' on IP for over 20 years but they've done nothing really. These talks are the first time basically ever that the US is speaking with credibility in terms of actual response/retaliation.
I suggest the Chinese are just waiting for Trump to be out of office, or to give him something political to show for it, and then going back to normal. I would be ideal if the US political org. got together with the EU, Japan, S. Korea, India and Australia ... and made a coordinated, long term effort on these issues. It would actually be better for everyone - even the Chinese, in the long term.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2018/12/07/674730823/u-s-trade-represent...
Even if you believe the tax cuts have had some positive effect on the economy, every legitimate economics professional and reality based think tank said that in order for the tax cuts to pay for themselves growth has to be 6%. Last time I looked it was 4.5%. These tax cuts won't pay for themselves. And the austerity we're in store for when the economy takes a down turn, which is inevitable, will be quite painful.
Hey remember when conservatives used to advocate for fiscal responsibility and balancing the budget? That's only for when Democrats are in charge. It's all an excuse to throw poor people under the bus.
I don't really think you can attribute this to the tax breaks, but if you can - then this would be an immense positive. Employee turnover is already very high pretty much everywhere now a days. Getting paid a year of salary, and more, to agree to leave? That's something I think the vast majority of workers would be absolutely thrilled to be offered. It's a potentially life changing offer giving somebody a chance to carry out any entrepreneurial fantasy they have, to get a fat head start on the joy of compound interest, or simply spending a year with bikinis, booze, and beaches if that's your thing.
Imagine you’re a 50 year old employee with a kid in college. Would you be thrilled to accept a year of salary with limited job prospects? What jobs do you think will be the first to be cut?
Don’t try to sugar coat it - when there are lay-offs (voluntarily or not), it’s rarely a positive for the majority of affected employees. And this in no way should be considered a positive effect of the corporate tax cuts.
If you don't want to leave, don't apply. And on that note - yeah people did have to apply, and some were rejected.
If a company just announced they are hiring a bunch of people, does the tax credit get credit for that? Currently, the US has very low unemployment. Also, in December 2017, wage growth was at 2.9%, while now it has increased to 3.7%. So almost a full percentage point in less than a year. Is that because of the tax cut? It would be very difficult to say for sure, but one thing is clear from the data, the tax cut didn’t reduce wage growth.
That's exactly what it is...which is why it is currently the top comment. HN never disappoints.
Still the economy is going in an upward direction, and Verizon isn't shrinking. Why are they laying off 10K people?
In a more practical consideration, they're very likely going to need less people going forward because they're going to keep losing market share to a more nimble competitor. They'd be the last to admit that of course.
“As part of the separation program, the employees will get a salary of up to 60 weeks, bonus and benefits, depending on the length of their service, Verizon said.”
This is why I always advise people to negotiate significance severance benefits up front, on the order of 6 months for junior employees, a year + bonuses and continued benefits for experienced employees.
Companies absolutely agree to severance amounts like this, even for new grads, and sayingno to a company that won’t is just doing yourself a favor.
Still, it’s a cautionary reninder to negotiate significant severance benefits.
People like you, who don’t negotiate or turn down offers when they don’t include severance, unfortunately end up not getting benefits they could otherwise routinely get by negotiating and being willing to say no.
Yes I was around for both the dotcom bust and the 2008 recession. Even then major corporations were hiring.
There is a much higher chance that I’m going to leave a company than a company is going to leave me. I’m going to negotiate pay, PTO, and even a title that looks good on my resume.
Several of my colleagues (one with two young children and a brand new mortgage) needed well over 6 months to find their next job. Few places were hiring for their skill area and _many_ companies passed on them just because having a resume gap from the layoff is an instant HR filter.
On top of this, paying for your own insurance even with COBRA is prohibitively expensive, like $600/month for an individual, upwards of $1500 for a family.
Some other teammates affected by that layoff faced really severe ageism during months of interviews before finding a job.
In other words, your comment is hopelessly myopic and I hope you never experience the kind of grim unemployment that many people face, even developers in job-heavy cities, because you don’t seem equipped to survive it.
The lay-off I did go through also involved about 30 people. This was in 2011. Everyone from developers, QA, L1 and L2 support staff had jobs lined up within a month. I suspect from the companies they went to had better jobs than they left.
Several of my colleagues (one with two young children and a brand new mortgage) needed well over 6 months to find their next job. Few places were hiring for their skill area and _many_ companies passed on them just because having a resume gap from the layoff is an instant HR filter.
This is why I focus my experience on two paths - one sort of specialized that offers better pay locally but where there are fewer jobs and the other where there are a lot of jobs/contracts but pay about average wages, ie. A bog standard generic full stack developer.
On top of this, paying for your own insurance even with COBRA is prohibitively expensive, like $600/month for an individual, upwards of $1500 for a family.
Life lesson I learned - don’t depend on CORBA. If the company goes out of business, their is no group plan to buy into. Even at full price. But yes, I thought about that. My wife has a secure government job and in a few years, will be guaranteed family health coverage for the rest of her life.
On top of this, paying for your own insurance even with COBRA is prohibitively expensive, like $600/month for an individual, upwards of $1500 for a family.
Ageism is overblown. I’m in my mid 40s. I was in my mid 30s when I first started getting serious about my career and job hopping. Companies don’t care how old you are if you have a current skillset. I also don’t try to work at the hipster companies.
In other words, your comment is hopelessly myopic and I hope you never experience the kind of grim unemployment that many people face, even developers in job-heavy cities, because you don’t seem equipped to survive it.
You mean by keeping my skills current, my network fresh, having a backup insurance plan, and having savings? Things everyone should do.
You claiming this pretty much invalidates everything else you’re saying, and makes me skeptical that you’re just lying about the other details. Nobody who has worked in professional circumstances for a while and “seen some shit” inside companies would say something as ludicrous as this.
> “by keeping my skills current, my network fresh, having a backup insurance plan, and having savings?“
Of course you should do all those things. Nobody said otherwise.
Those things don’t guarantee you’ll be hired again quickly though, not by a longshot. So negotiating severance is still a critical additional action to take over and above the other items you mentioned.
Right. Because I mentioned “In 20 years its never taken me more than three weeks to get another job” before you mentioned ageism just in case you brought it up. Do I need to mention my experience programming on an Apple //e in 65C02 assembly language in the 80s to validate my old man cred?
If you are concerned with your job as a means of financial stability instead of your set of marketable skills and your network, you’re doing it wrong. Jobs come and go. I can honestly say that I didn’t stay up one night worried about being laid off even though I knew the company I worked for was in deep financial trouble. I had recruiters chomping at the bit waiting to place me.
Those things don’t guarantee you’ll be hired again quickly though, not by a longshot. So negotiating severance is still a critical additional action to take over and above the other items you mentioned.
How much good would it have done to “negotiate severance” successfully at the one company that I was laid off from that went out of business and had no money left?
I’ll take my chances on having a marketable skillset, and negotiating a salary that allows me to save my own money.
If you assume pessimisticly that you will get laid off and have a 3 month gap in employment every three years, all you have to do is negotiate an 8% higher than market rate and save your own money.
instead of a single data cap with overage pay and consistent speed for all destinations, you get various separate caps for various destinations.
Some places will certainly negotiate severance, but it's state and industry specific as well as very, very dependent on the position you're moving into.
Also, which companies negotiate severance package before you are even hired? Especially as a new graduate? I've never heard of such thing as a software developer.
comp(tenure) -> {
(60 [weeks of salary, benefits]) * (tenure [weeks]) / (65 [years]), tenure < 65
60 [weeks of salary, benefits], tenure >= 65
}
> Verizon Communications Inc said on Monday that about 10,400 employees will be leaving the U.S. wireless carrier by mid next year as part of the company’s voluntary separation program.
They offered a package earlier in the year https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/25/verizon-offers-separation-pl...
Why? Because you say so? We should ignore the literal words of the press release in favor of something you think may happen?
In fact, the structure of the the offer is one that offer's a far greater incentive to those with a lot of seniority vs those who are newer. If we assume that many of these might be technician jobs under a union contract where more years of service equals higher pay, they could have more senior workers take the package, immediately hire new employees and save a decent amount of money.
Granted, I've only seen that strategy in practice with municipal workers, but it makes no more assumptions than you do.
As a general rule, this is a good idea.
It's just another layer of corporate double-speak.
The same way "fired" became "laid off."
Until the early 90's, "laid off" applied to factory and seasonal workers, who were expected to be recalled when production ramped up again.
Laid off means an employer doesn't want/need your position anymore.
Fired means an employer doesn't want you anymore.
Fired means they are dismissing you for cause.
Of course this is often when the good employees start doing interviews as well.
> It's just another layer of corporate double-speak.
No, it's really not.
Fired and laid-off are not synonyms. Fired and terminated are synonymous. However, laid off generally means the position is not continuing.
That being said, "voluntary separation" just means they are anticipating a large layoff and are attempting to reduce the overhead of determining who to let go.
That's my point. But they're used interchangeably now by the PR departments of big companies so that getting rid of people doesn't seem so bad.