No Bargain: Comcast and the Future of Workers' Rights in Telecommunication

NO BARGAINComcast and

the Future of

Workers’ Rights in

Telecommunications

AMERICAN RIGHTS AT WORK

“They made ‘bargain’

a dirty word.”

— ANONYMOUS

COMCAST EMPLOYEE

N O B A R G A I N

i

Preface

by Thomas A. Kochan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ii

Introduction

The Rise of Cable and Implications for Telecom Jobs . . . . . . . . .1

Chapter 1

The Significance of Unions in Establishing

Middle Class Telecom Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Chapter 2

Working Conditions at Comcast:

A Case for Collective Bargaining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Chapter 3

Taking Plays from the Unionbusting Handbook:

How Comcast Could Change Labor Relations in Telecom . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Chapter 4

Making Social Choices about Fair Labor Practices . . . . . . . . . .23

No Bargain: Comcast and the Future of Workers’ Rights in Telecommunications, © June 2004 By Julie Martínez Ortega, Research Director, American Rights at Work Preface by Thomas A. Kochan, George M. Bunker Professor of Management and Co-Director MIT Workplace Center,Massachusetts Institute of Technology We would like to express our gratitude to the workers who shared their stories with us. Thanks to American Rights atWork staff Liz Cattaneo, Kimberly Freeman, Erin Johansson, Mary Beth Maxwell and interns Paul Musselwhite andKristen Kuriga who contributed to the research, writing and editing of this report. Thanks to Earl Dotter for photo-graphs on pages 5 and 17, researcher Logan Worsley, and the design team at GO! Creative.

Table of Contents

A M E R I C A N R I G H T S AT W O R K

ii

not like doing business with anemployer that fails to meet itsresponsibilities to employees and thecountry, especially one I did notchoose voluntarily and cannot nowavoid without incurring significantcosts and disruption.

Third, one of my most vivid child-hood memories was the night myfather told me my favorite AuntCecilia was taken to a Milwaukeehospital with a stroke that wouldeventually disable her for the restof her life. She was lucky to havebeen a long time operator for Wis-consin Bell and a member of theCommunications Workers of Amer-ica (CWA). Although too young tounderstand it at the time, I eventu-ally came to appreciate the fact thatmy favorite aunt could retire sever-al years earlier than normal with

America used to look tothe leading companiesin its key industries toset the standard forwages, benefits, working

conditions, and responsible man-agement behavior. The expectationwas that others would then feelcompetitive pressures to match orapproach this standard. This was animportant part of the dynamic thatproduced a social contract at work,in which loyalty was returned withsecurity, and worker and family liv-ing standards improved in tandemwith productivity, profits, and eco-nomic growth. The failure of Com-cast to play this leadership role isone of the reasons I find its behav-ior so disappointing.

But I have two other reasons forworrying about what the behaviordescribed in this report says, notjust about Comcast, but about thedisgraceful state of labor relations inAmerica today. The second andthird reasons are more personal.

I write this as I watch a baseballgame on my Comcast cable whilemy laptop is linked to a Comcastbroadband internet connection. Iam a reluctant Comcast customer,having first purchased these servicesfrom AT&T. About a week aftersigning up, AT&T sold this businessto Comcast. So I now am a bonafide Comcast “stakeholder.” I do

sufficient benefit support andretirement income that allowed herextended family to care for heruntil she died with dignity manyyears later. This was her just rewardfor her 25 years of loyal and I’msure good service to the companyand her customers.

Fast forward to today. Suppose myaunt was employed for an equiva-lent number of years at Comcastwhen she had her stroke. Shewould not have had union repre-sentation. She would not havebeen covered by a defined benefitpension plan. And she would havehad approximately two-thirds ofher real earnings. Her health insur-ance would not have provided thebridge coverage needed until SocialSecurity took over. Given thesefacts, the only way she would havebeen able to retire early and livethe rest of her years in comfort anddignity would have been if ourfamily or the state would havestepped in and provided her hous-ing, health care, and nursing sup-ports in her final years.

This is why as informed citizens,customers, and family members, weall have a stake in making Comcastand other leading companies meettheir responsibilities.

This report presents some of the spe-cific dimensions of employment rela-

PrefaceThomas A. Kochan

George M. Bunker Professor of Management and Co-Director

MIT Workplace Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

…as informed citizens,

customers, and

family members, we

all have a stake in

making Comcast

and other leading

companies meet

their responsibilities.

N O B A R G A I N

iii

The New York Times to BusinessWeek to The Wall Street Journalhave exposed Wal-Mart’s practicesof firing union supporters, failing topromote women, violating wageand overtime laws, and even lockingits employees in its stores at night.Most recently, Wal-Mart announcedplans to restructure its wage policiesin ways that penalize longer termemployees, thereby discouragingloyalty and long service.

General Motors (GM) was the Wal-Mart equivalent in the heyday ofAmerica’s industrial economy. From1945 to the mid-1970s, GM set thestandard for gradually improvingwages, benefits, and working condi-tions not just for other auto compa-nies but for American industry ingeneral. Why? Maybe GM manage-ment should be given some creditfor internalizing its CEO’s famousclaim that “what’s good for GeneralMotors is good for America.” Butthe reality is that the gradualimprovements in wages andemployment conditions at GM werenegotiated bilaterally with the Unit-ed Auto Workers (UAW). GM didnot simply roll over and acceptwhatever the UAW demanded.Instead the company decided howto best cope with the UAW’s pres-sure for incremental improvementsin wages, benefits, and workingconditions in ways that allowed thecompany to grow and provide fairreturns to its shareholders. Later,when the company and the union,indeed the entire industry, had toadapt to a changed global economy,

tions on which Comcast fails to meetits responsibilities as a leading com-pany. Only one in four locationswhere a union exists have been ableto obtain a collective bargainingagreement. Apparently, the companyprefers to move work to alternativelocations rather than work with aunion once organized. Wages of thegrowing cable sector are approxi-mately one-third lower than theunionized telephone companies.Defined benefit pensions that pro-vided years of retirement security tomy aunt’s generation have beeneliminated, replaced with 401(k)programs that shift the risk andresponsibility for retirement savingto employees who have less dispos-able income.

It would be bad enough if this wasjust an isolated example. Unfortu-nately, it is not. Independent andhighly respected researchers suchas Rosemary Batt and Harry Katzat Cornell University and JeffreyKeefe at Rutgers University havedocumented how these downwardtrends in employment conditionshave spread across the largely non-union cable TV and wireless seg-ments in the telecommunicationsindustry.

Or consider another company thatshould be setting a standard forothers in its industry and the coun-try, Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is thebiggest employer in America’s serv-ice dominated economy today. Overthe past several years, a series ofarticles in publications ranging from

the company and the union foundways to work together to make theadjustments through negotiationsand some highly innovative andlargely cooperative labor manage-ment relationships.

How might we get back to this pos-itive dynamic? It is clear that thecurrent system of labor relations isbroken. If the largest companies in

American industry can ignore theintent of American labor law thatemployees have the right to chosewhether or not they will be repre-sented by a union and engage incollective bargaining, then imaginehow far out of reach these samerights and benefits are to employeesat less visible companies.

The data presented here presentsan even more telling story. Theemployees of Comcast, like allother American workers, want andneed access to forms of participa-tion and representation in corpo-rate decisionmaking beyond thoseprovided under the National

It is time for fundamental

reforms of labor policy

that reflect the realities

of organizational

decisionmaking today.


iv

Labor Relations Act. If, as isclearly the case, decisions govern-ing employee relations strategy aremade at Comcast corporate head-quarters, why should employeeshave to fight location by locationfor the right to have an input inthese policies? This makes nocommon sense and no longerserves any useful public policypurpose. If power is concentratedat the top of organizations, this iswhere employees need a voice. Itis time for fundamental reforms oflabor policy that reflect the reali-ties of organizational decision-making today.

How might we do this? Maybe wecan start by holding American com-panies to the same standards we arenow beginning to apply to transna-tional companies such as Nike orothers previously found to have vio-lated fundamental human rights inthe overseas plants they or theircontractors operate. Nike and otherscame under severe pressure to adoptand enforce corporate codes of con-duct that include the minimumstandard that employees have theright to join a union and engage incollective bargaining. Why shouldwe expect more of companies oper-ating overseas than we do at home?

Sometimes raising simple questionsmakes the point better than sophis-ticated or complicated analysis. Forme, these are the simple questionsthis report raises. It should do thesame for anyone else who has a“stake” in Comcast, whether theyare employees, shareholders, cus-tomers, or ordinary American citi-zens. Perhaps it is a time for all ofus to take up this issue and trans-form what has been a quiet field oflabor management relations into anational public debate.

N O B A R G A I N

1

market. What’s more, cable compa-nies are now preparing to offertelephone service over high-speeddata networks, in direct competi-tion with telephone companies.Comcast will roll out this VoiceOver Internet Protocol (VOIP)technology in 50% of its systems byyear’s end and in 95% of its mar-kets by the end of next year.

Analysts say Comcast is far largerthan its competitors and poses thebiggest long-term threat to com-munications carriers in the areas itserves. “Comcast will likelybecome one of the biggest phonecompanies over the next decade,”said John Hodulik, analyst at finan-cial firm UBS in an interview withThe New York Times.2

Comcast is also a major employer,with 68,000 workers nationwide.Of those employees, 59,000 workin cable. Unlike telephone, whichis a heavily unionized industry,cable jobs tend to be less secure. Incable, employee turnover and theuse of temporary workers (whoreceive few of the benefits associat-ed with full-time, permanentemployment) are twice as high asthe telephone industry average.3

Since the mid-20th century, thetelecom industry has steadily

The telecommunications(telecom) industry is at acrossroads. As cable busi-nesses begin to offerservices historically pro-

vided by telephone companies,workers are seeing their jobs andworking conditions change—andnot for the better. Cable corporateleaders and their shareholders areexperiencing soaring profits as theysuccessfully capitalize on technolo-gy-inspired opportunities. Theirworkers, however, experienceexpanding and ever-changingresponsibilities and workloadswithout a matching growth incompensation, a continual reduc-tion of benefits; and, most impor-tantly, a decreasing ability to nego-tiate the terms and conditions oftheir changing working conditionsthrough union participation.

Comcast, with customers in 35states and the District of Columbia,is the nation’s leading cable andbroadband communicationsprovider. The company holds themain share of eight of the top tenU.S. markets, and serves 70% ofsubscribers in the top 20.1

The demand for high-speed Inter-net access is booming, and cablecompanies like Comcast currentlycontrol an estimated 60% of that

grown as a provider of higher-paying, semi-skilled jobs offeringlong-term security. Yet the indus-try’s history and reputation as asource of middle-class jobs—inpart due to its recognition forworkers’ rights to form unionsand negotiate contracts—is nowendangered by the rise of cablecompanies and their questionablecommitment to high labor rela-tions standards. In light of rapidtechnological advancements thatplace new demands on the cableworkforce, protecting the free-dom of Comcast employees andother cable workers to formunions and negotiate the termsand conditions of their employ-ment is critical for preservinggood telecom jobs.

Protecting the freedom

of Comcast employees to

form unions and negotiate

the terms and conditions

of their employment is

critical for preserving

good telecom jobs.

The Rise of Cable and Implications

for Telecom Jobs

INTRODUCTION

2


took home a combined $20.3 mil-lion with an additional $34.2 mil-lion in exercised stock options in2003. The company can afford torespect workers’ rights to formunions, negotiate fair contracts,and make good, middle-classcareers available to its workforce.As the market leader, it does notneed to lower labor standards forthe industry. Comcast can reversethe entire cable industry’s greaterreliance on contractors and tempo-rary workers, provide workers withpensions, and reduce costly out-of-pocket healthcare insurance premi-ums. These semi-skilled jobs atComcast are employment opportu-nities that Americans typically haveused to build a solid future fortheir families.

While Comcast has achieved phe-nomenal growth and success, it hasresisted employee attempts to formor maintain their unions, and leftmany jobs less secure. This reportdocuments Comcast’s pattern ofdisrespecting labor rights at thecompanies it has acquired. It alsodocuments the dramatic decline ofunion representation at Comcastsince it acquired AT&T Broadbandin 2002.

As the leader of the cable industry,and the monopoly provider inmany communities, Comcast’sactions towards workers who wantunions are a matter of choice, notnecessity. Comcast Chairman andCEO Brian Roberts and his father,Comcast founder Ralph Roberts,

The company’s punitive actionstoward workers who attempt toform unions or negotiate contractsundermine the labor relations par-adigm that has long existed in tele-com. As Comcast grows and com-petes with traditional telecomproviders to offer a wider array ofservices, it could significantlytransform the nature of labor rela-tions. By limiting the ability ofworkers to collectively bargain,corporations like Comcast are freeto increase profitability by lower-ing labor costs. The end resultcould be the devolution of goodtelecom jobs into low-level, dead-end service industry work that isproliferating in our economy. At atime when many Americans arefearful and still experience the eco-nomic fallout of mass layoffs andthe flight of middle-class jobs tooverseas labor markets, can weafford to lose ground in a home-bound industry like telecom thathistorically has been a source ofstable, family supporting jobs?

About this Report

No Bargain: Comcast and theFuture of Workers’ Rights in Tele-com is based on an exhaustivereview of National Labor RelationsBoard records obtained via Free-dom of Information Act requests,and government documentation ofthe wage and benefits trends intelecom and the broader servicesector. We interviewed current andformer Comcast technicians andcustomer sales and service repre-sentatives, as well as attorneys andunion organizers who are or have

FORTUNE’s July 21, 2003 article, “King Comcast,” featuring CEOBrian Roberts confirms the company’s leadership in the cable industry and broader community.

N O B A R G A I N

Comcast effectively sends a strongmessage throughout its workforceabout the risks and consequencesof forming a union. While Comcastoffers just cause for each termina-tion and personnel decision, ourresearch suggests correlationsbetween employee discipline,delayed union contract negotia-tions and the decline of union rep-resentation at Comcast. This trendwarrants concern about the compa-ny’s labor relations strategies.

With limited means to collectivelybargain over the terms and condi-tions of employment, will telecomworkers be forced to accept

been closely involved in represent-ing Comcast employees.

The names of some current andformer Comcast employees inter-viewed in this report have beenomitted, per their request, to pro-tect them from potential employerreprisals. Many workers who wereinterviewed fear their commentscould be used as justification toterminate their employment anddiscourage other workers fromspeaking out about their difficultwork experiences at Comcast. Allother names in the report are realand have been included with theexpressed permission to do so.

In the process of preparing NoBargain, we spoke with an employeeand mother of two who fears shewill lose her home. Delayed con-tract negotiations between Com-cast and her union have held herwages down for years, while infla-tion continues to rise. Anotheremployee told us how his termina-tion, which he believes was relatedto his pro-union activity, has arrest-ed his ability to contribute tuitionmoney for his daughter’s collegeeducation. She is the first memberof their family to attend college.

These cases and other similar sto-ries relayed by Comcast workersacross the country suggest a pat-tern of corporate behavior thatundermines workers’ ability tonegotiate the terms and conditionsof their employment. By delayingcontract negotiations indefinitelyand firing pro-union workers,

3

longer hours, fewer benefits, andless job security in order toremain employed? How will theirinability to engage in good faithnegotiations with Comcast affectthe preservation of these middle-class jobs?

There is good news. Patterns andtrends can be reversed. As theindustry leader that prides itself ona “pro-employee” ethos, Comcasthas the ability to shift course andbegin bargaining in good faith withits workers. Doing so will greatlystrengthen and preserve the qualityjobs and high labor standards inthis important American industry.

Comcast founder Ralph Roberts is also featuredin FORTUNE’s article.


4

The Significance of Unions in

Establishing Middle-Class Telecom Jobs

ton. Soon, traditional circuit-switchtelephone service will have compe-tition in the form of Voice OverInternet Protocol (VOIP), whichcould replace traditional phone lineservice with the ability to place callsthrough an Internet connection.

This seemingly endless array ofnew technologies and services isblurring the lines separating tele-phone, cable, entertainment, andinformation services. The rapidchanges in products, and the com-panies that provide them, call for a

The telecom service indus-try is in the midst of oneof the most explosiveperiods of growth andchange in its 100-year

history. Thanks to new technologyand deregulation-induced competi-tion, consumers and businessesnow have an extensive menu ofproducts and services at their fin-gertips. It’s possible to watchmovies on a computer screen, reada newspaper online, and receivefinancial information from abank—all with the click of a but-

review of how telecom companiestreat their workforces.

Telecom has long been a source ofgood jobs in this country. Throughcollective bargaining, workers andtheir unions have been able to cre-ate middle-class jobs by negotiatingdecent wages, benefits and jobsecurity. The majority of workers inthe industry formed unions in the1950s. In 1974, national collectivebargaining began in the Bell sys-tem, and wages in the industryrose well above the national aver-age. A healthy balance betweenmanagement and labor in theindustry’s leading firms ensuredthat telecom employees could garner family wages and flexiblework conditions.

Boston Globe columnist Robert Kut-tner and other prominent socialcommentators contend that manyof the benefits of working in indus-tries like telecom did not comeinto being by chance, or as a resultof the benevolence of goodemployers. He writes, “No inher-ent economic logic required semi-skilled factory workers to earn mid-dle-class wages. What made the dif-ference was strong unions and fed-eral enforcement of the right toorganize. Blue-collar service jobscould pay decently, too.”4

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1947

1953

1959

1965

1971

1974

1977

1983

1989

1995

2001

Telephone Communications All Private Industries

Rise in Telecommunications Wages Since National Bell System Collective Bargaining

National Bell system collective bargaining began—1974

CHAPTER 1

Source: BLS (2004). B-15. Average hours and earning of production or nonsupervisory workers on privatenonfarm payrolls by detailed industry. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

N O B A R G A I N

5

deregulated two decades ago, highjob standards and labor-manage-ment relationships remained anindustry norm. Cable companies,which came into existence after thisperiod in telecom history, do notshare this legacy and have not, thusfar, demonstrated a commitment totelecom labor standards.

While the growing influence ofcable companies in telecom signifi-cantly contributes to changinglabor standards in the industry, thelack of enforcement of U.S. laborlaw, coupled with the law’s inade-quacy to contend with the shiftingeconomic paradigm within telecomand other industries, also con-tributes to the problem workersface. The National Labor RelationsAct states: “Employees shall havethe right to self-organization, to

In recent decades, workers across allsectors who choose to organizetheir workplaces face unprecedentedresistance. Cornell University pro-fessor Kate Bronfenbrenner’sresearch reveals that 75% of employ-ers hire consultants to help fightunion organizing drives. In 92% ofworkplaces with union drives, work-ers are forced to attend mandatory“captive audience meetings,” inwhich managers discredit union par-ticipation and distribute anti-unionliterature. Efforts to dissuade work-ers from forming unions are notlimited to the workplace. Seventypercent of employers mail anti-union letters to workers’ homes todiscourage union support.5

In telecom, much of the industrywas controlled by a monopolywhen initial union contracts werenegotiated. As a result, workersexperienced the benefits of the bar-gaining agreement across theindustry. Even after telecom was

form, join or assist labor organiza-tions, to bargain collectivelythrough representatives of theirchoosing, and to engage in othermutual aid or protection.” Yet,Comcast employees’ ability to usethe protections of this keystonelegislation is hampered by a lack ofenforcement of the law. In thisreport we find that the system andthe law fail to guarantee the rightsof cable workers.

The Impact of Unions in Telecom

For more than 40 years, the servicesector has been at the forefront ofjob creation. Between 1959 and2003, the service sector’s propor-tion of total employment jumpedfrom 64.1% to 83.2%, and thenumber of service-sector jobsincreased from 34.2 million to 108million.6 Although the number of

Stephen White, former Comcastemployee from metropolitanWashington, DC.

Telecommunications historically has provided better opportunities toAmerican workers than other service industries, due in part to its highunionization rates.

service-sector jobs is growing,many of these jobs offer depressedwages and little opportunity forworkers to climb into the middle-class. As of 2000, the median serv-ice sector employee earned $484per week, as compared to $636 inmanufacturing.7

Telecom is one industry that tran-scends the standard “low-quality-service-sector-job” rule. At thecenter of the high-technologyinformation arena, this industryhistorically has provided betteropportunities to American work-ers than other service industries,due in part to its high unioniza-tion rates. Some 76% of telecomtechnician work sites haveemployee unions.8 At union facili-ties, technicians earn 7%-10%more than their non-union coun-terparts.9 After controlling forother factors that affect wages,there is a 15% union wage premi-um in telecom work sites.10

As Comcast and other cable com-panies with low unionization ratescommand larger market shares andexpand their services to includethose traditionally provided bycompanies with higher union par-ticipation, good jobs in telecomincreasingly are placed at risk. Withmore than 26% of households and27% of the revenue for cable andsatellite television at present, andthe possibility of acquiring compa-nies that could potentially expandits market share, Comcast is poisedto dwarf its telecom rivals.11


6

Rates of Union Representation:Wireline Telephone vs. Cable TV

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

% of technical worksites with unions % of call center worksites with unions

Wireline Telephone Cable TV

63%

12%20%

5%

Average Annual Total Pay by Network Type

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Cable Local Wireline Long Distance Wireless & Cellular Internet Services

Pa

y in

Th

ou

san

ds

35

51 50 50 49

Source: Batt, R., A. Colvin, H. Katz, and J. Keefe. “Telecommunications 2000: Strategy, HR Practices & Performance.” Ithaca, New York, Cornell-Rutgers Telecommunications Project: 30.

Source: Batt, R., A. Colvin, H. Katz, and J. Keefe. “Telecommunications 2004: Strategy, HR Practices, & Performance.” Ithaca, New York, Cornell-Rutgers Telecommunications Project.

*The study is based on a survey of general managers of network operations and call centers in thetelecommunications services industry. The survey was administered to a nationally random sample of 463 establishments drawn from the Dun & Bradstreet listing.

N O B A R G A I N

7

TELEPHONE POSITIONS

Installation and Maintenance Technician

• Install• Test• Maintain telephone circuitry and equipment for

both residential and business customers on their premises

• High school diploma or equivalent

Cable Splicing Technician

• Repair, maintain, splice, and test subscriber line,carrier plant and/or line fiber optic plant

• Splice new cable and make splicing rearrange-ments on existing facilities in buried, underground, aerial and building work locations

• Construction work • High school diploma or equivalent

Customer Data Technician

• Install, test, maintain and repair communicationsequipment and services, including analog, data,sub-rate and high speed digital, DSL, VDSL,ISDN, audio and video services

• Configure customer's computer hardware andsoftware

• Work directly with customers • High school diploma or equivalent

Central Office/Network Center Technician

• Maintain central office switching, transport,power, and frame equipment

• Survey and analyze alarms, test lines andtrunks

• Install services and coordinate with otheremployees

• Schedule/perform software back-up and update procedures

• High school diploma or GED required

COMCAST POSITIONS

Communications Technicians 1, 2, 3

• Full Installations • Verification surveys• Disconnects, reconnects and pre-wires for

residential and business customers• High school diploma or the recognized

equivalent in work experience or self-study

Communications Technician 4

• Repair and/or replace damaged aerial/underground plant

• Splice aerial/underground coaxial cable andequipment to restore cable plant to systemspecifications

• Construction maintenance• High school diploma or equivalent

Service Technician

• Install, reconnect, add and/or change videoproducts and services

• Troubleshoot and repair advanced CPE, including two-way video, residential and commercial customers

• Configure and install complexes and MDU Lockboxes

• Handle a variety of customer interactions • High school diploma or equivalent

Head End Technician

• Maintain and configure network devices, hubs,switches and routers

• Conduct testing per headend/hub preventativemaintenance programs

• Install, maintain and repair headend and hubelectronic systems and components

• Interface effectively with division engineeringstaff and equipment vendors

• High school diploma or equivalent

Comparison of Comcast Cable Positions with Telephone Positions

Source: NACTEL and Comcast websites 12, 13


8

Wage and Benefits: Wireline Telephone vs. Cable TV

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000


Average annual pay, $ value of benefits, Average annual pay, $ value of benefits, technical workforce technical workforce call center workforce call center workforce

$43,214

$35,513

$15,304

$36,066

$9,945

$26,224

$9,894$7,768

Examining the Wage and Job Security Disparity

between Phone and Cable Jobs

Similarities Between Telephone

and Cable Jobs: A Case for

Extending Telecom Labor

Standards to Cable

While job titles may differ at cableand telephone companies, thefunctions workers perform essen-tially are the same. Moreover, asthe distinction between telephoneservice and cable providers blursand services such as VOIP grow inpopularity, the difference becomesnegligible. Both cable and tele-phone jobs require workers tohandle customer concerns aboutplans, prices, and service quality.Both require central office techni-cians to handle the hub of infor-mation flows, and field representa-tives to build and maintain thephysical infrastructure.

Examining Wage and Job

Security Disparity Between

Phone and Cable Jobs

Wages. According to the mostrecent monthly figures from theU.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,full-time telephone workers earn$48,110 a year on average. Cableworkers performing similar dutiesearn $34,756—more than$13,000 less annually than theirhighly unionized counterparts.14

Data gathered by Cornell and Rut-gers University researchers demon-strate that cable technicians earnapproximately 30% less than work-ers in any other network establish-ment,15 despite the fact that cablefirms face relatively little competi-tion in their local markets, sincethey average a 73% market share.16

Workforce Tenure: Wireline Telephone vs. Cable TV

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

% of workforce with less than % of workforce with more than Total turnover 1 year tenure 10 years tenure at the company level

4%


16%

63%

39%

10%

21%

Source: Batt, R., A. Colvin, H. Katz, and J. Keefe. “Telecommunications 2004: Strategy, HR Practices, & Performance.”

Source: Batt, R., A. Colvin, H. Katz, and J. Keefe. “Telecommunications 2004: Strategy, HR Practices, & Performance.”

N O B A R G A I N

9

At unionized SBC Communica-tions, Inc., full-time veteran opera-tors earn $41,000 a year, whilecustomer service representativesgross more than $46,000, andtechnicians are paid $56,000 to$59,000, the Los Angeles Timesreported, citing company andunion sources.17

Job Security. Workers tend to stayin telephone jobs for longer peri-ods of time than cable workers,perhaps because of the greater jobsecurity that telephone workersenjoy. Employee turnover in cableis more than twice as high (21%)as local telephone (also referred toas wireline) turnover rates (10%).18

Additionally, temporary employeesin cable are used at twice the tele-phone industry’s average rate.19

Telephone technicians tend tohave more experience than theircable counterparts. Thirty-ninepercent of cable technicians havemore than ten years of experience,compared to 63% of local tele-phone technicians.20

Comparing Union and

Non-Union Telecom Jobs

Not all telephone companies haveunions. In addition, there are a fewcable companies with organizedworkforces. Yet, comparisonsbetween union and non-unionhuman resources in each field arehelpful and convey the potentialimpact if declining union densitycontinues and becomes the newtelecom labor standard.

Union vs. Non-Union Telecommunications Workforce: Customer Service & Sales Operations

01020304050607080

% Part-time staff % Temporary staff % Annual employee Benefits as a % of turnover median pay

Union Non-Union

46%

63%

18% 23%9%

18%

32%23%

Union vs. Non-Union Technicians.Among telecom technicians, unionworkplaces are more likely to relyon internal promotions to fillvacancies (56% vs. 46%).21 Union-ized telecom workplaces also relyon far fewer temporary employeesthan non-union workplaces (5%vs. 13%).22

Union vs. Non-Union CustomerService and Sales Operations. With-in customer service and sales,union telecom workplaces rely lesson part-time (45.5% vs. 63.4%)and contingent staffing (18.2% vs.23.2%) than do non-union work-places.23 Workers at union work-places are paid higher medianwages ($30,198 vs. $26,386),receive more generous benefits(measured in benefits as a percent-age of median pay), and experi-ence lower turnover rates as measured by quit rates (8.5% vs.17.7%).24 Customer service and

sales representatives at unionworksites also have greater tenure(50% have ten years of experience,vs. 27.7%).25

Similarities between cable and tele-phone jobs suggest that little pre-vents cable corporations like Com-cast from adopting fair labor stan-dards long-held within telecom. Inessence, voluntarily recognizingworkers’ rights to form unions andnegotiate fair contracts, a rightguaranteed by U.S. law, becomes aquestion of will, ethics and goodcorporate citizenship at a time whenAmerica’s workforce needs it most.

Source: Batt, R., A. Colvin, H. Katz, and J. Keefe. “Telecommunications 2000: Strategy, HR Practices & Performance.” Ithaca, New York, Cornell-Rutgers Telecommunications Project: 30.

10


CHAPTER 2

Working Conditions at Comcast:

A Case for Collective Bargaining

Comcast’s ever-expandingservices, driven largely bytechnological advance-ments, have a significantimpact on the breadth,

scope and volume of work per-formed by its employees. Comcastworkers across the country reportthat they: (1) are required to per-form more work within the sameamount of time; (2) are evaluatedaccording to unreasonable andunfair standards; and, (3) are frus-trated by management’s unrespon-siveness to their concerns aboutunsafe work conditions.

Workers Want Predictable

Work Schedules

Many American workers experiencegrowing pressure to produce morein less time. Similarly, Comcastemployees often attribute hecticwork lives to “mandatory overtime”and unreasonable workloads. Man-agers frequently instruct employeesto continue working beyond theirscheduled shifts, often withoutprior notice—a practice many Com-cast workers with families find espe-cially disruptive. “The workload haschanged,” said one employee speak-ing on differences before and afterhis former company was acquiredby Comcast. “We have too muchovertime, and it’s mandatory. Youcan’t go home until the work getsdone. When people call in sick, wehave to pick up their routes. That’son top of our 11 to 12 assignedjobs a day. There is no leeway for usgetting off [work] on time. We getno support in management. Theydon’t care.”26

Many workers think that the per-formance expectations are unrea-sonable. “There’s a completionrate you have to do,” said thesame worker. “You have eighthours to get the work done, butthey give you 14 hours worth ofwork. There are procedures youmust follow, but you don’t have

time to [perform them or performthem well].”27

Stephen White, a former Comcastemployee from the metropolitanWashington, DC region, recountedsimilar changes at his shop whenComcast took over. “In the lastthree years, they’ve added a lot ofnew services—digital cable andhigh speed Internet, for example.We were responsible for installingand maintaining these services,too. They were not giving us anymore time in the day to do theextra work that was required tomaintain these things.”28

Children and families pay the high-est cost for unpredictable workschedules that often end late atnight. “We care about the cus-tomers, but we have to go homeand take care of our families,” saidone service technician. “When Iget home, my kids are in bed. I get up early and go to work. I’dlike to go home once or twice aweek on time.”29

Workers Want Reasonable

Requirements and Evaluations

Comcast has instituted new evalua-tion criteria, most likely as itacquired companies and rolled outnew services, which the workers wespoke with feel is unfair. Most

“In the last three years,

they’ve added a lot of new

services—digital cable

and high speed Internet,

for example. They were not

giving us any more time

in the day to do the extra

work that was required to

maintain these things.”

—STEPHEN WHITE,

FORMER COMCAST WORKER FROM

METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON, DC

workplaces rely on performancestandards to ensure quality workand/or customer satisfaction.However, the workers interviewedview Comcast’s performance ratingsystem as arbitrary and devoid of amethod to address errors in scorecalculations. These workers believethat no adequate process exists tocontest performance ratings whenthey disagree with their assessment.

Stephen White, who allegedly wasterminated on the basis of his per-formance scores, shared, “Comcastinstituted this monthly scorecard.If you didn’t reach a minimumscore each month, you were disci-plined. [I often felt that] thescores they had were totallywrong.”30 Others said that thecompany seems to take littleaccount of an employee’s workloadin determining scores. Servicetechnician Gary Kane from PortHuron, MI, said, “I’ve been writ-ten up probably about nine to tentimes based on quality assurance.They want us to do 13 jobs a day,but [I feel that] they don’t look atwhat each job consists of.”31

Some workers report that theywere penalized when customersrefused to sign paperwork. “Wehave to get customers to sign thework order,” Gary Kane explained.“If we don’t, we get written up.I’ve been docked days without payfor a customer not signing a workorder. It was not like that beforeComcast. There’s a lot of smallprint that customers have to readabout the cost of cable and the

N O B A R G A I N

responsibility of returning equip-ment. Plus, there is a privacy infor-mation act statement [that somecustomers find problematic]. Ifthey don’t agree, they don’t haveto sign it.”32

Workers Want a Voice

on Safety Issues

Like workers in many industries,Comcast employees are concernedabout safety on the job. A formerComcast warehouse worker fromSan Jose, CA, said his worksite was“very dangerous,” noting that sev-eral people were hurt on the job.“I complained and nothing wasever done,” he said. “There werecramped quarters. We had to loadup different racks without room tobend. You bend in awkward ways

and have no way to pick up itemsproperly or safely. There’s clutterand it’s not a good, safe workingenvironment. You really had to becareful.” He added that he feltsupervisors sent a message thatworkers were dispensable; and, thatif a worker took disability leave, hisjob would not be waiting for himupon recovery.33

Our researchers spoke with a work-er who had been on legitimate dis-ability supported by a doctor’s doc-umentation of his injuries. He wasfired by Comcast after his disabilitylasted longer than six months,despite many years of service onthe job. Prior to his injury, he hadreceived service awards from Com-cast for his work.34

11

According to CWA, member Tyrone Smith was suspended by Comcast for“substandard work.” Said Smith, “the arbitrator found that basicallyeverything they had on me was trumped up. It took a year and a half to resolve.”

12


driving in a hurry, carrying a lad-der. I can’t afford to get hurt.”36

Another worker reported on thesafety hazards associated withforced overtime, “Some people areworking terrible hours in the dark,”he said. “It’s hard to be safe whenyou’re working 12-hour shifts.”37

For many workers, unions repre-sent a way to have a strong, collec-tive voice when speaking out indi-vidually seems too risky. Accordingto the World Bank, “Individualworkers may find it too costly toobtain information on health and

Employees in the field contendwith safety hazards on a daily basis.Stephen White said he oftenworked during thunderstorms withlightening. He also recalled othernon-weather related dangers in thefield. “Whenever you’re requiredto dig up cable, you never knowwhat you’re going to find. You justnever know when you stick yourshovel in the ground what you’regoing to get.”35

Another anonymous worker added,“You are always trying to cut cor-ners. People have gotten minorinjuries for their lack of safety—

safety risks on their own, and theyusually want to avoid antagonizingtheir employers by insisting thatstandards be respected. The bene-fits from compliance with stan-dards are not limited to any indi-vidual but are enjoyed by all work-ers. A union can spread the cost ofobtaining information on healthand safety issues among all work-ers, bargain with employers on thelevel of standards to be observed,and monitor their enforcementwithout putting any individualworker at risk of losing his or herjob. Studies in industrial countriesindicate that the role of laborunions in ensuring compliancewith health and safety standards isoften an important one.”38

Unions help to enforce health andsafety standards in a number ofimportant ways that could benefitComcast workers. Union contractsoften contain provisions that layout policies and procedures toensure a safe workplace (see inset).Unions also are well positioned togather information about danger-ous conditions more effectivelythan individual workers, and havethe means to expose potential vio-lations to enforcement agencies.Since unions generally supporthealth and safety programs andprovide on-the-job risk assessmenttraining, union workers are morelikely to recognize risks in theirworkplaces, according to a study byBoston University Professor DavidWeil on unions and OccupationalSafety and Health Administration(OSHA) standards enforcement.39

Excerpt of Collective Bargaining Agreement Between Verizon

New York, Inc. and Telesector Resources Group, Inc. and

Empire City Subway Company (Limited) and Communications

Workers of America, AFL-CIO, District One

40.01 Safety is a concern to the Company and the Union. The Com-pany and the Union mutually recognize the need for a work environ-ment in which safe operations can be achieved in accomplishing allphases of work, and the need to promote better understanding andacceptance of the principles of safety on the part of all employees to pro-vide for their own safety and that of their fellow employees, customers,and the general public. The Company agrees to maintain a safe andhealthful workplace for all employees.

40.02 To achieve the above principles, the Company and Union agreeto establish an advisory committee on safety principles at the Companyheadquarters level…

40.03 In connection with any safety activities, the Company agrees toreimburse only for the time spent by active employees during theemployee’s schedule tour of attendance at such committee meetingsand for traveling to and from such committee meetings at his regularstraight time rate of pay.

Unions also give workers a collec-tive voice, thereby increasing thechances of getting management’sattention; and, decreasing the riskthat an individual employee will belabeled a troublemaker by manage-ment.40 Union representation atComcast could provide workerswith protection against unfair dis-missals for workers who exercisetheir legal rights under OSHA.

Moreover, the thoroughness of anOSHA inspection increases inunion workplaces. While theOSHA law gives every worker theright to accompany an inspectorduring a workplace tour, unionworkers are far more likely to take

N O B A R G A I N

advantage of this opportunity todraw attention to issues that maybe overlooked.41

Union contract negotiations oftenare a venue where managementand employees equally contributeto agreements on scheduling, over-time, performance evaluation, andsafety policies. Universal proce-dures and a more uniform applica-tion of them are frequently theresult of collective bargainingagreements. Workers who wantunions often see their ability tonegotiate such terms as essentialfor protecting their health, theirlivelihoods, and the wellbeing oftheir families.

13

“You are always trying to

cut corners. People have

gotten minor injuries for

their lack of safety—

driving in a hurry, carrying

a ladder. I can’t afford to

get hurt.”

—ANONYMOUS COMCAST EMPLOYEE

14


deterring union organizing at itsfacilities across the country; (2)failing to negotiate contracts atfacilities with union bargainingunits; and, (3) generally creating ananti-union climate that significantlycontributes to the rapid decertifica-tion of unions in its facilities. As aresult, between 2001 and the early2004, nearly 2,000 union-repre-sented jobs were lost at Comcast.43

As the cable industry leader, Com-cast’s anti-union activity signifi-cantly shapes industry labor rela-tions norms. The company’s grow-ing dominance in the broader tele-com sector can potentially shift thelabor relations paradigm in a criti-cal economic sector known for itshigh labor standards.

Comcast’s Efforts to Halt

Union Organizing Drives

At a number of facilities whereworkers are engaged in unionorganizing drives or have unions,Comcast management has engagedin questionable activities, which sig-nify that unions will not be tolerat-ed. Tactics used at work sites acrossthe country include: holdingmandatory anti-union assembliescalled “captive audience” meetings;allegedly removing workers who

Comcast complements itspublic image of businessacumen and laudedindustry dominance with a professed “pro-

employee” commitment. “We arenot pro-union. We are not anti-union. We are pro-Comcastemployee,” said Comcast Executive

Vice President David L. Cohen.42

Some Comcast employees—espe-cially those who desire to exercisetheir rights to belong to a unionand engage in collective bargain-ing—recognize the existence of agap between the company’s wordsand its actions.

Our investigation suggests thatComcast has much ground tocover in order to fully live up to itscommitment. This chapter chroni-cles Comcast’s practice of: (1)

lead union organizing effortsthrough unfair disciplinary actions,termination, and even promotion;and, dissolving existing unions bymoving work and dispersing pro-union workers among non-unionfacilities. These strategies stronglyresemble those recommended byunionbusting consultants, who arecontracted by 75% of employers fac-ing union organizing drives.44

In Sacramento, CA, for example, aComcast lawyer dressed in clothingresembling that worn by servicetechnicians voiced anti-union senti-ments in a captive audience meet-ing.45 After a worker vocalized hissuspicions, the attorney revealedhis true identity.46

A few months before being termi-nated for “poor performance,”vocal union supporter StephenWhite of the metropolitan Wash-ington, DC, area was offered amanagement job. “They tried tooffer me a position right when webrought the petition [for a unionrecognition election]. They triedto get me to put in for a supervi-sor position. And when I refused,they started a paper trail to get ridof me.”47 Because managers areineligible for union representation,promoting union supporters into

CHAPTER 3

“We are not pro-union. We

are not anti-union. We are

pro-Comcast employee.”

—COMCAST EXECUTIVE

VICE PRESIDENT DAVID L. COHEN

Taking Plays from the Unionbusting Handbook: How Comcast Could Change

Labor Relations in Telecom

management positions effectivelylowers the number of eligible elec-tion voters and bars strong pro-union leaders from participating inunion activity.

In the greater Chicago area, Com-cast managers moved 195 jobsfrom a union-represented facility tonon-union locations throughoutthe region. In Dallas, Comcastmanagement similarly moved 100jobs.48 A total of 125 jobs weremoved in Detroit.49 “It’s like this,”one Detroit worker recounted.“We had a strong group of people.Three years ago we had about 125union people. Comcast has donethings to destroy [the union] bydepopulating. Today there are only49 people.”50

In just two years, Comcast has suc-ceeded in decreasing the number ofunion-represented workers at thefacilities acquired through the pur-chase of AT&T Broadband. TheDallas workers filed charges againstthe company for refusing to bargainover the loss of these jobs as well asthe impact of job movement onworkers. The NLRB issued a com-plaint against the company, agreeingthat Comcast should have bargainedover the effects of this move.51

In this section, we offer an in-depth examination of Comcast’santi-union practices against itsemployees in three different cities.

Retaliation in Dallas.52 ClomaLeach, a customer service represen-tative in Dallas, learned firsthand

N O B A R G A I N

about what happens to Comcastworkers who support unions.When her job was relocated froman organized Comcast worksite toa non-union facility across town,she decided to help form a unionin the new location. An active andoutspoken union member at herformer worksite, Comcast began tomonitor her activity via audio andvideo without her consent. Thecompany fired Cloma and used thesurveillance video to justify itsaction. Cloma believed her termi-nation was for union activity andnot for the charges levied againsther. The NLRB agreed with Clomaand issued a complaint againstComcast for violating her right to

organize and notified the parties ofa hearing. Before the case could beheard, Comcast chose to reach asettlement with Cloma.53

Comcast’s efforts to defeat theunion organizing campaign werenot limited to Cloma’s dismissal.When the union attempted to dis-tribute written information toworkers as they entered and leftthe worksite, a Comcast managerphysically placed himself betweenunion representatives and workersarriving at the plant, thereby pre-venting them from receiving theinformation. These actions, aswell as incidents of illegally moni-toring union supporters, resulted

15

According to CWA, an arbitrator ruled that Comcast’scharges against Reggie Frezzell of South Hills, PA, were with-out merit. Frezzell was awarded back pay and seniority for theyear he was out of work, and $5,000 to cover lost benefits.

16


cast to remove disciplinary actionsfrom their files.55 One worker, aunion steward, was disciplined forviolating the company dress codeby wearing a t-shirt while conduct-ing union business at the worksiteon his day off.56

Silenced in Montgomery County,MD. In fall 2003, outspoken unionsupporter Stephen White beganattending Montgomery CountyCouncil public meetings to informCouncil members of the difficultiesthat he and his fellow workersfaced in their attempts to gainunion recognition at Comcast. The17-year cable industry veteran,who worked for Comcast for fiveyears, was fired by Comcast fourmonths after he began speaking atthe Council meetings. Representa-tives of the union Stephen hoped tojoin helped him file charges withNLRB Region 5 in March of thisyear. From February to April,2004 NLRB Region 5 received sixULP charges against Comcast forterminating five employees anddiscriminating against one for theirunion activity.57

Comcast management asserts thatthey fired Stephen because of poorjob performance. However, he sayshis transgressions consisted of usingsick leave in accordance with com-pany policy when needing to quali-fy for short-term disability, and fail-ing to meet monthly evaluationscores that he asserts were inaccu-rately measured. Without Stephen’sleadership, the union effort therehas faltered. According to Stephen,

in an NLRB complaint againstComcast. The company resisted,settling the issue and the union iscurrently awaiting a hearing toaddress this matter. The damage,however, was done. Through this resistance, the company successfully communicated to its workforce the lengths to which management was willing to go to defeat the union organiz-ing drive.54

In addition to termination andinterference, workers feel Comcastretaliates against union supportersin other ways. Will Rogers, anotherDallas-area Comcast employee, wasone of two shop stewards at hisworksite. Out of 25 employees,Will and the other steward were theonly individuals disciplined within aone-year period. According to theunion organizers, the union filedULP charges against Comcast forsingling them out for minor infrac-tions and successfully forced Com-

the remaining workers fear beingfired on spurious charges if theyspeak up in a similar manner. Los-ing his job has had a devastatingeffect on his family. “I have twodaughters I’m helping put throughcollege. And I was actually sup-posed to send them some tuitionmoney. I had to call and tell themthat I couldn’t do it right now andthat everything’s on hold.”58

The negative repercussions of thisde facto Comcast “gag order”extend far beyond Stephen’s formerworkplace. Workers across the coun-try have felt the chilling effect ofComcast’s actions. As a result, anumber of Stephen’s former co-workers who were scheduled tospeak at a press conference on prob-lems at Comcast did not show up.59

In preparing this report, weencountered numerous Comcastemployees with strong feelingsabout the company’s treatment ofunion members and supporters, whoinsisted on remaining anonymousout of fear that they would losetheir jobs, and therefore, endangerthe welfare of their families.

Discrimination in Chicago. JohnMascaro, a Chicago Comcastworker who led the union organ-izing effort in his workplace, wasterminated and lost his home as aresult. John was an active memberof his community, serving as a vol-unteer firefighter as well as anoutspoken steward at the Comcastfacility in Downers Grove, IL.When an injury required him totake disability leave, John says the

“Three years ago we had

about 125 union people.

Comcast has done things

to destroy [the union] by

depopulating. Today there

are only 49 people.”

—ANONYMOUS COMCAST EMPLOYEE,

DETROIT

company refused to allow him totake the full amount of time nec-essary to heal properly and firedhim. Prior to his termination,Comcast managers viewed John as such an exemplary employeethat they cast him in a commer-cial. Without John’s income, theMascaro family was unable tomake mortgage payments and losttheir home.

John believes that his visible sup-port for the union was a factor inthe company’s decision to termi-nate his employment. His belief isbolstered by knowledge that Com-cast did not fire another employeefrom his region who took disabilityleave for a similar length of time.She did not support the union. Theunion filed ULP charges and con-tested John’s termination. Comcastsubsequently agreed to compensatehim for his lost wages.

Delays and Decertification:

Purging Unions from Comcast

Facilities

Comcast’s anti-union activity is notlimited to stopping unions from rep-resenting its existing workforce. AsComcast acquires cable companiesacross the country, it must contendwith unions already in existence atthe facilities formerly owned by itscompetitors. Utilizing the commonunionbusting tactic of delaying con-tract negotiations, which often con-tributes to the decertification ofexisting unions, has had a startlingimpact on the disappearance ofunions within Comcast’s nationalnetwork of facilities.

N O B A R G A I N

These distinct activities often workhand-in-hand. When a companyindefinitely and illegally avoidssincere bargaining with a union, itmakes workers feel hopeless aboutwinning a contract; or worse, thatunions are an impediment to payraises and benefit increases. Afterwinning a union recognition elec-tion, gaining a contract is the nextstep. Many companies successfullydelay contract negations for ayear, the required waiting timebefore a decertification petitioncan be filed. Without the protec-tion of collective bargaining agree-ments, the central reason whyworkers form unions, workers maybecome so disillusioned with theunion that they seek to vote itout, a process called “decertifica-

tion.” While it is illegal foremployers to actively recruit orencourage its employees to decer-tify unions, many companies breakthe law or come close to the legalline instead of maintaining a neu-tral posture. The fact that 16 ofthe 22 Comcast worksites thatdecertified unions between July2001 and May 2004 neverreached a first contract with thecompany suggests a strong corre-lation between delay and decertifi-cation.60 In this section, we exam-ine the details behind stalled con-tract negotiations and the highand rapid rate of decertification at Comcast.

Delay in Bargaining. Despite itslegal obligation to bargain in good

17

Stephen White (right) of metropolitan Washington, DC, believes he was terminated for supporting the union drive and speaking publicly abouthis difficult experiences at Comcast.

VA

NC

SC

GAMS

LA

AR

MOKS

OK

TX

NE

SD

NDMT

ID

WA

OR

NV

UT

AZ

CA

WY

CO

NM

IA

MN

TN

KY

INIL

WI

MI

PA

NY

NJ

DE

RI

MA

CT

VT

ME

NH

OH

WV

AL

FL

MD

18


its acquisition by Comcast. Addi-tionally, many former AT&T andTCI (another cable system acquiredby AT&T Broadband) employeeswho had contracts prior to Com-cast’s purchase of their respectivecable systems have had difficultyreaching new contracts with Com-cast as their prior collective bargain-ing agreements expire.

During the transfer of franchiselicenses in municipalities nation-wide, Comcast promised unionmembers and local franchise boardsthat it would respect the agree-ments made between AT&TBroadband and the union mem-bers. Comcast leaders pledged tocontinue the fair labor managementpractices established between theparties.62 By law, Comcast was mini-mally required to recognize theunions. In light of Comcast’s assur-

faith with its unions, Comcast hasa dismal record of reaching collec-tive bargaining agreements with itsworkers, many of which organizedunions prior to Comcast’s acquisi-tion of their former employers.Our researchers reviewed 150ULP charges filed against Comcastfrom 1990-2004. Almost two-thirds of these ULPs alleged thatthe company refused to bargaincollectively with the representativesof the employees.

As part of its contract with theCommunications Workers of Ameri-ca (CWA), AT&T Broadbandagreed not to interfere in workerschoices about organizing a union.61

Workers at several facilities organ-ized themselves into unions. Manycollective bargaining units had notyet reached their first contractswhen AT&T Broadband announced

ances of compliance, union mem-bers did not oppose Comcast’s peti-tion to acquire their cable compa-nies. However, once Comcast tookover operations, it began a processof delaying contract negotiations,often only reaching agreement oninsignificant matters. “The tentativeagreements are on minor thingssuch as tools,” said one workerinvolved in negotiations with Com-cast.63 “They decided to change thelanguage in the contract from ‘rep-resentatives’ to ‘employees.’ Reallysmall things like the table of con-tents—petty stuff. I don’t under-stand why this is taking so long. Ican only assume it’s a stall tactic tokeep us from getting a contract.”

Another worker who wishes toremain anonymous discussed theimpact of delay on morale. “Thewaiting discouraged the workers. It

CONTRACT REACHED WITH COMCAST

NO CONTRACT REACHED WITH COMCAST*

Bargaining for less than 13 months

Bargaining for 13-24 months

Bargaining for more than 24 months

*In some cases, the bargaining time includednegotiations with AT&T Broadband beforeComcast took over the company.

The Loss of Union Representation at Comcast

Decertifications from

July 2001 to May 2004

was making those of us who werepro-union look bad.”64

Although the failure or refusal tobargain in good faith is prohibitedby the National Labor RelationsAct (NLRA), it is very difficult toenforce the law as it is currentlyinterpreted.65 The NLRA is basedon the premise that if both laborand management come to the tablein good faith, the negotiationprocess will function effectively.The law assumes a balance ofpower between management andworkers maintained by the exis-tence of equally potent “economicweapons” sufficient to encouragethe other to bargain fairly.

Even where a party files ULPcharges with the NRLB assertingfailure to bargain with representa-tives of the employees, the onlyremedy available to the NLRB isissuing an order to bargain ingood faith. Additionally, noenforcement mechanism exists toensure compliance by the offender.The legal process fails to mandatesincere bargaining or imposepenalties for violations. Whenunions are decertified because ofdelay, workers lose and companieslike Comcast and the NLRBescape the appropriate blame.

The Consequences of Delay: AChicago Worker’s Story. A workerand her colleagues at a suburbanChicago Comcast facility have beenstuck in delayed contract negotia-tions since 1999. When Comcastacquired AT&T Broadband in late

N O B A R G A I N

2002, she believed that the compa-ny would live up to its promises tonegotiate a new bargaining agree-ment with her union. “We hadhigh hopes that day,” she said. “InFebruary 2003, they closed theoffices and brought all of theworkers downtown to the ArieCrown Theater for [a big, company-sponsored concert]. RalphRoberts, Brian Roberts, SteveBurke and all the VPs greeted usfrom the stage.” According to thisemployee, Comcast executivessolicited trust from their newemployees and promised to takegood care of their workers.66

A mother of three young children,this worker recently became thebreadwinner in her family after herhusband lost his job due to a seri-ous, chronic health condition.While she did receive a small, one-time pay increase during the five-year delay, her stagnant wages havenot kept up with the escalatingcost of basic living expenses.Everyday, she worries about losingher home as she struggles moreand more to make ends meet.

Suspicions of Comcast Complicity inDecertification Elections. It is illegalfor a company to encourage work-ers to file for a decertification elec-tion. Any attempt to remove theunion from its role as the workers’representative must be performedby the workers themselves, accord-ing to the NLRB. Despite thisclear prohibition on employers,Curt Henninger, Comcast’s SeniorVice President and General Man-

ager for Oregon asserted, “I willtell you we’re going to wage warto decertify the CWA.”67

A review of the conditions at Com-cast facilities where unions weredecertified reveals a pattern of anti-union behavior that could onlyserve to undermine the union.Comcast workers interviewed forthis report experienced discrimina-tion in pay, performance evaluation,

and working conditions. WhenComcast employees exercised theirright to organize a union, they felt targeted by management andbelieved that they experiencedharsher penalties for minor infrac-tions than did co-workers who werenot union supporters.68 This formof discrimination effectively purgedunion leaders from the union’sranks. Additionally, they becamesymbols of what might happen toworkers who chose to openly sup-port the union.

Some workers interviewed for this report believe that Comcast

19

“I will tell you we’re going

to wage war to decertify

the CWA.”

—CURT HENNINGER,

COMCAST’S SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT

AND GENERAL MANAGER

FOR OREGON

20


The story of bargaining at a St. Paul, MN, Comcastfacility is an example of how the company’s delay-

ing tactics resulted in workers voting to decertify their union.

On May 10, 2002, employees at the site (owned at thetime by AT&T Broadband) voted in favor of union rep-resentation. Soon after the vote, CWA was certified asthe exclusive bargaining representative.

AT&T Broadband did not begin bargaining until mid-September, and only after the workers filed UnfairLabor Practice (ULP) charges with the NLRB. Companynegotiators made no proposals at the September ses-sions, cancelled the only session scheduled for October,and informed the union that they were unavailablethroughout the entire month of November. They alsoexpressed reluctance to continue bargaining becauseComcast would soon be purchasing the company.

The Comcast buy-out purchase was completed onNovember 17, 2002. At the workers’ request, the par-ties agreed to meet for bargaining on December 18 and19. At these meetings, the company refused to signtentative agreements reached in the September meet-ings, and also declined to make any counterproposals.On December 19, the Comcast representatives had noproposals and disclaimed any authority to bargain onbehalf of the company, thereby ending the meeting.

In early January 2003, the union attempted to sched-ule another session but was told by Comcast’s repre-sentatives that the company had not yet selected alead bargainer and was therefore unwilling to scheduleany bargaining sessions. In mid-February, after weeksof attempting to schedule another meeting, the unionthreatened to file another ULP. Finally, Comcast appointeda lead bargainer, but refused to meet prior to March 19.

At the March 19 meeting, Comcast negotiators askedquestions about the union’s outstanding proposals,presenting only one counterproposal and two initialproposals, all concerning non-financial matters. Com-cast representatives also informed the union that itwould not recognize any of the tentative agreementsreached with AT&T Broadband, saying they all wouldhave to be resubmitted as written bargaining propos-als. The next day, Comcast representatives ended thebargaining session early and said they could notschedule any further meetings because they did nothave their calendars.

On March 27, the union mailed a written proposal toComcast, as requested, resubmitting all the matterscovered under the earlier, tentative agreement withAT&T Broadband. Additionally, the document respondedto all of Comcast’s proposals.

The union continually tried to schedule another ses-sion. In mid-April, Comcast agreed to meet on May 5and 6. At those sessions, the parties met, but again,did not discuss financial matters, except for healthcare. Comcast ended the meeting early on May 6 andstated that it would not be able to meet again untilJune 16—several weeks after the one-year bar ondecertification elections. Comcast representatives sub-sequently cancelled the June 16 meeting and statedthat they would be unavailable until after June 30. Bythat time, employees in the unit had filed a decertifi-cation petition.

Ultimately, no agreement was ever reached and theworkers eventually decertified the union out of frustra-tion with the process.69

THE STORY OF BARGAINING DELAY...

created conditions that significantlycontributed to decertification, eventhough the company did not filethe petitions itself.

Interview subjects from differentComcast facilities across the country commonly spoke ofworkers who opposed unionsreceiving perks and pay increases,improved working conditions andleniency. In Dallas, for example,workers witnessed a co-workerengaging in decertification elec-tion-related activity during busi-ness hours instead of performinghis assigned tasks as a technician.The workers did not witness hisco-worker receiving discipline for dereliction of duty.70 Con-versely, visible union supportersfrequently were monitored bymanagement and believed thatthey received poor performanceevaluations and were denied pay

N O B A R G A I N

increases comparable to their anti-union counterparts. These dis-criminatory practices expressed bythe Comcast workers interviewed

for this report resemble tacticscommonly used by companiesthat wish to dismantle unions at their facilities.72

In Pittsburgh, NLRB Region 6issued complaints against Comcastfor illegal behavior that allegedlyoccurred the month before decer-tification elections at several work-sites. According to the consolidat-ed complaint, Comcast told itsemployees at three locations that“they would not receive morewages and benefits than non-repre-sented employees.” In addition,managers informed employees,“that it would be futile for them toselect the union as their bargainingrepresentative.” Comcast purport-edly “promised its employeesincreased benefits and improvedterms and conditions of employment

21

The NLRB established specific rules on filing petitions for elections todecertify existing unions. Decertification elections require signaturecards endorsed by at least 30% of union-represented employees in the bargaining unit.

Generally, under “contract-bar” rules, when a majority of workers votefor union representation and the election is certified by the NLRB, thatcertification usually is binding for one year. A petition for another elec-tion in the same unit will be dismissed if filed to the NLRB during thatone-year period.71 Additionally, a valid contract for a fixed period ofthree years or less will bar a decertification election for the period cov-ered by the contract. However, a petition for decertification filed morethan 60 days, but not more than 90 days, before the end of the contractwill be accepted and may bring about a decertification election.

According to CWA, Bill Gilchrist of Local 13000 in PA, far left, won his arbitration case and joined his co-workers back on the job.

Rules on Filing Decertification Election Petitions

22


if they rejected the union as theircollective bargaining representa-tive.” Quite possibly, the merit of these complaints compelledComcast to reach a settlementwith CWA to hold a re-run decer-tification election for two of thethree locations.73

In Salt Lake City, Comcast gave amarket increase in pay to allemployees except those who were inunion-represented bargaining units.The union filed ULP charges andprevailed. The company appealedthe findings, but eventually droppedthe matter after the workers votedto decertify the union as its bargain-ing representative.74

Wages are always high on workers’lists of things that they want aunion to improve. Comcast haseffectively appropriated the power

of unions to improve wages bydenying union shops wage increas-es until unions are decertified.According to one worker, “I’mpaid just under $14 an hour. Andthat’s after a considerable raise of38% when we decertified theunion.” The worker said the company implied that they wouldgain better pay if they decertifiedthe union.

Through delay and discriminationagainst workers in the mannerdescribed above, Comcast effective-ly contributes to the decline ofunionization and the inherent ben-efits described in Chapter Two ofthis report. Speaking of Comcast’sstrategy, one worker recalled a con-stant management refrain. “‘Youdecided to be union. You’re goingto have to bargain for that.’ Theymade ‘bargain’ a dirty word.”75

…Comcast told its

employees at three

Pittsburgh locations that

“they would not receive

more wages and benefits

than non-represented

employees.”

Technological advancesand their social and eco-nomic benefits are notwithout consequencesthat require consideration

and thoughtful decisionmaking. Atother times in our country’s histo-ry, innovation has required nationaland local debate on economic poli-cy. Current changes in the telecomindustry—namely, the technology-fueled expansion of cable servicesincluding those once exclusivelyprovided by telephone companies,and the phenomenal growth anddominance of Comcast—call cor-porate leaders, legislators, workers,consumers and all other concernedcitizens to engage in vigorous pub-lic discourse.

Securing Fair Labor Standards

and Strengthening the Law

We have choices to make about thelabor standards we wish to preserveor change, particularly in U.S.-bound industries like telecom thathistorically have been critical increating and sustaining good, mid-dle class, semi-skilled jobs.

Our research on the differencebetween highly unionized tele-phone companies and cable busi-nesses with lower union densitysuggests that the ability of telecomworkers to form unions and bar-gain for contracts plays a crucial

N O B A R G A I N

role in creating and sustaininggood jobs.

This fact holds true outside of tele-com. In Las Vegas, for example,over 90% of the hotel workers onthe strip belong to unions.76 LasVegas hotel workers who are mem-bers of the Hotel Employees andRestaurant Employees InternationalUnion (HERE) earn 50% morethan their counterparts in nearbyReno, NV.77 The high rate of unionmembership within the Las Vegashospitality sector means that corpo-rations that maintain high laborstandards are not competitivelypenalized for doing so.

Companies across a range of indus-tries are in a race to cut costs andfatten their bottom lines. A Busi-ness Week article on the “Wal-Mar-tization” of America noted thatgood jobs enabling workers tomove up the economic ladder aredisappearing as result of the corpo-rate strategy “to control labor costsby hiring temps and part-timers,fighting unions, dismantling inter-nal career ladders, and outsourcingto lower-paying contractors athome and abroad.”

Because labor standards have beenuniversally applied within the tele-phone sector of the telecom indus-try, lowering these standards as a

cost cutting measure has not been astrategy for gaining a competitiveedge among telephone companies.But now, the technologicaladvancements in cable have unfairlypitted highly-regulated telephonebusinesses with a strong history ofstable, middle-class jobs againstcable giants like Comcast. As Wal-Mart has done in the grocery sec-tor, Comcast is reshaping the socialcontract between labor and man-agement in a manner that will likelyforce competitors to emulate itspractices in order to compete.

Unfortunately, our research sug-gests that Comcast workers, in

23

CHAPTER 4

Making Social Choices about

Fair Labor Practices

We have choices to make

about the labor standards

we wish to preserve or

change, particularly in

U.S.-bound industries like

telecom that historically

have been critical in

creating and sustaining

good, middle-class,

semi-skilled jobs.

24


ability to negotiate the terms of theiremployment through unions. Com-cast’s stance toward unions, and thetactics that flow from it, greatly con-tributes to the high rate of uniondecertification at the company’sfacilities nationwide. In general,these tactics are not illegal. Mostoften, the company remains in com-pliance with the most basic techni-calities of the law. But as a companywith a self-proclaimed interest inbeing a good employer, is this lowstandard acceptable?

As a nation, we must consider ifsuch behavior constitutes goodcorporate citizenship. As Comcastassumes a larger percentage of themarket share, more workers andthe communities in which theylive will suffer the consequenceschronicled by the Comcast work-ers profiled in this report. Can weafford to have Comcast’s laborrelations model replicated by

increasing numbers, are losingfooting under Comcast’s labor rela-tions model. Comcast workers whowish to maintain or form a unionfeel discouraged from doing so by the company. Coupled withweak U.S. labor laws that areunequipped to address new trendsor adequately penalize corporateoffenders, workers who want aunion voice at Comcast facetremendous obstacles, often atgreat personal risk and loss. Wemust strengthen our U.S. laborlaws to include real penalties forviolating workers’ rights. Requiringoffenders to post notices that theywill not engage in certain practicesis insufficient to curb anti-unionbehavior. The law also must putadequate pressure on employers tobargain first contracts. Are we pre-pared, as a nation, to overlook thisemerging trend and allow thedevolution of jobs in a vital, grow-ing sector of our economy?

Setting Standards for

Corporate Citizenship

Our research of the telecom indus-try indicates that we must collec-tively set expectations of corporatecitizenship, and buttress our eco-nomic and political values with theadjustment and enforcement ofU.S. laws that disallow theinfringement of workers’ rights andworking conditions for the sake ofcompetitive edge and profitability.

At present, Comcast seems to be“gaming the system” by not playingby the long-established rule in tele-com to not interfere with workers’

other companies within and out-side of this industry?

While companies like Comcastwould lead us to believe that work-ing with unions is unnecessary andcostly, we must ask ourselves if weas a country can afford to risk theerosion of U.S.-based, family-sup-porting jobs. Without collectivebargaining, the future for workersgrows much bleaker. As the Com-cast examples show, working condi-tions and job stability often declinewhen there is no union to holdmanagement accountable or tospeak up for workers when they aretreated unfairly.

Local regulatory agencies and elect-ed officials who commonly negoti-ate the terms of business relation-ships in their municipalities mustbegin to take into considerationhow lower labor standards impacttheir citizenry and local economies.

We have other options than theComcast’s labor relations practices.In addition to the aforementionedLas Vegas case, there are otherexamples of responsible corporatebehavior in contract negotiationthat can be referenced. The recentagreement between SBC Commu-nications, Inc. and the Communi-cations Workers of America (CWA)is an instance where a company anda union worked together to negoti-ate a contract. The recent agree-ment between SBC and CWAincludes provisions to expand thecontract to cover both traditionalland-line jobs and those in growingareas like VOIP and Internet. ACWA spokeswoman told the LosAngeles Times that the agreement isimportant because it includes newcommunications technologies inthe definition of traditional tele-phone work. According to CornellUniversity Professor Lance Compa,“This settlement shows that unionsare still here, that they still have avoice and still have a future in cer-tain industrial sectors.”78

At the height of tense negotiationsthat included a four-day walkoutbefore SBC and CWA reached theagreement, management and the

N O B A R G A I N

union kept the lines of communi-cation open. In previous years, thetwo sides had reached agreementwith more than a month to spare,and the union has worked withthe company to reduce pricingregulations.79

For some 50 years, relationshipslike this have helped establish eco-nomically stable communitiesaround the country. Will the rise ofComcast, with its de facto “no tol-erance for unions” policy, changethe nature of collective bargainingfor its new competitors as somebelieve that Wal-Mart has done inthe grocery sector?

Secure, good paying jobs are a cor-nerstone of the coveted Americanmiddle-class lifestyle. Good jobsare essential for positive societalconditions such as homeownership,access to healthcare, and, adequateresources for care when we becomeelderly, infirmed or disabled. Adecent living enables workers andtheir families to advance economi-cally over generations through theacquisition of wealth and educa-tion. Finally, workers with securejobs support local economies andprovide sound tax bases for schools

and other public services. As Comcast and others within thecable industry continue to changethe telecom industry, will they beheld accountable?

We conclude our report with anappeal. We call on Comcast execu-tives to live up to their promisesand public praise. Respect the rightof workers to form unions. Beginto diligently bargain with your rep-resented workers. It is the rightthing to do, an economically feasi-ble thing to do, and, most impor-tantly, an inherently American anddemocratic thing to do.

25

We call on Comcast

executives to live up to

their promises and public

praise. Respect the

right of workers to form

unions. Begin to diligently

bargain with your

represented workers.

26


9. Ibid.

10. Ibid.

11. TNS. Turbulent Telecom Market-place Marked by Shifting MarketShare. Accessed June 17, 2004.Available from http://www.tnst-elecoms.com/press-4-21-04.html.

12. NACTEL. Careers in Telecommu-nications. Accessed April 25, 2004.Available from http://www.nac-tel.org/about/careers.php.

13. Comcast. Comcast Careers JobSearch. Accessed May, 2004. Avail-able fromhttp://careers.comcast.com/choices/searchjobs.asp.

14. Bureau of Labor Statistics. B-15.Average hours and earnings of pro-duction or nonsupervisory workerson private nonfarm payrolls bydetailed industry. 2004.

15. Batt, et al. Telecommunications2000: Strategy HR Practices & Performance.

16. Ibid.

17. Granelli, James S. “SBC UnionWorkers to Stage Four-Day Strike.”Los Angeles Times, May 20, 2004.


19. Ibid.

20. Ibid.


22. Ibid.

1. Comcast. Comcast Fact Sheet.Accessed June 6, 2004. Availablefromhttp://www.cmcsk.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=147565&p=irol-factsheet.

2. Reuters News. “Comcast PlansInternet Telephone Service.” TheNew York Times, May 27, 2004.

3. Batt, R., A. Colvin, H. Katz, and J.Keefe. Telecommunications 2004:Strategy HR Practices & Perfor-mance. Ithaca, New York: Cornell-Rutgers Telecommunications Pro-ject, 2004.

4. Kuttner, Robert. “Remedy to out-sourcing: better US jobs.” TheBoston Globe, April 28, 2004.

5. Bronfenbrenner, K., Uneasy Ter-rain: The Impact of Capital Mobili-ty on Workers, Wages, and UnionOrganizing, Report for the U.S.Trade Deficit Review Commission.2000.

6. Bureau of Labor Statistics. B-1.Employees on nonfarm payrolls bymajor industry sector, 1954 to date.2004.

7. Bureau of Labor Statistics. B-2.Average hours and earnings of pro-duction or nonsupervisory work-ers(1) on private nonfarm payrollsby major industry sector, 1964 todate. 2004.

8. Batt, R., A. Colvin, H. Katz, and J.Keefe. Telecommunications 2000:Strategy HR Practices & Perfor-mance. Ithaca, New York: Cornell-Rutgers Telecommunications Pro-ject, 2000.

23. Ibid.

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid.

26. Anonymous Worker 100, Ameri-can Rights at Work Interview,Kimberly Freeman, March, 2004.

27. Ibid.

28. White, Stephen, American Rightsat Work Interview, Kimberly Free-man, March, 2004.

29. Anonymous Worker 100.

30. White.

31. Kane, Gary, American Rights atWork Interview, Kimberly Freeman,March, 2004.

32. Ibid.

33. Anonymous worker 150. AmericanRights at Work Interview, KimberlyFreeman, March, 2004.

34. Mascaro, John, American Rights atWork Interview, Julie MartínezOrtega, May, 2004.

35. White.


37. Anonymous Worker 120, Ameri-can Rights at Work Interview, Kimberly Freeman, March, 2004.

38. International Bank for Reconstruc-tion and Development—The WorldBank. “Workers in an IntegratingWorld, 1995.”

39. Weil, David. “Enforcing OSHA:The Role of Labor Unions.”Industrial Relations 30, no. 1(1991): 20-36.

40. Ibid.

References

41. Ibid.

42. Tanaka, Wendy. “Takeover bidpoints to Disney difference towardits unions.” Philadelphia Inquirer,April 11, 2004.

43. This information obtained fromNLRB FOIA requests and inter-views with local union representa-tives of the Communications Work-ers of America and the Internation-al Brotherhood of Electrical Work-ers.

44. Bronfenbrenner.

45. Companies commonly hold “cap-tive audience” meetings to intimi-date employees out of supportingunion drives. Held during regularwork hours, company managementrepresentatives require workers tosit in mandatory meetings and lis-ten to the company’s views on theunion. While a company has theright to give its perspective on theunion it is required by law torefrain from threatening or coerc-ing the workers into opposing theunion. Often, the workers muststill complete their work assign-ments despite having spent signifi-cant time in captive audience meet-ings. At these meetings, companiesoften bring in workers from otherplants that do not have unions todescribe their positive experiencesas unorganized workers.


47. White.

48. Rusher, Sandy, American Rights at Work Interviews, May, 2004,Organizing Coordinator, District6, Communications Workers ofAmerica.

N O B A R G A I N

49. CWA White Paper on DetroitComcast, 2003.


51. NLRB, Order Consolidating Cases,Consolidated Amended Complaintand Notice of Hearing; 16-CA-22032, 16-CA-22186-1; Novem-ber 26, 2002, in National LaborRelations Board, Region Sixteen.2002.

52. At the time of Cloma Leach’s ter-mination, the company technicallyin control of the facility was AT&TBroadband. However, Comcasthad already obtained a transfer ofthe AT&T cable franchise. CityCouncil of Dallas, Texas. “AnOrder Adopting Change of Con-trol of the Cable Television Fran-chise from AT&T Corporation toAT&T-Comcast CorporationFinancing: No Cost Considerationto the City.” May 22, 2002.

53. Rusher.

54. Ibid.

55. Ibid.

56. Ibid.

57. National Labor Relations BoardRegion 5 received the followingcharges against Comcast: 5-CA-31800, March 15, 2004, 5-CA-31713, February 3, 2004, 5-CA-31906, April 23, 2004, 5-CA-31791, March 8, 2004, 5-CA-31909, April 29, 2004, 5-CA-31905, April 23, 2004.

58. White.

59. Kopack, Justyn. “Fired ComcastEmployees Fear Publicity.” Mon-togmery County Sentinel, March18, 2004.

60. This information obtained fromNLRB FOIA requests and inter-views with local union representa-tives of the CommunicationsWorkers of America and the Inter-national Brotherhood of ElectricalWorkers.

61. Communications Workers ofAmerica and AT&T Broadband.Memorandum of UnderstandingRegarding Neutrality and ConsentElection. 1999.

62. Denver City Council. ResolutionNo. 52 adopted by the Council of theCity and County of Denver, CO. InSupport of the AT&T ComcastTransfer, Quality Service, LocalJobs and Labor Harmony, 2002.Boston City Council. Resolution ofCouncilors Feeney Roache, Kelly,Murphy, Henningan and Yancey,adopted by the City Council ofBoston, MA. In Resolution forComcast and AT&T Broadband tocome to an agreement with CWAand IBEW on a code of conduct forlabor-management relations inorder for franchise approval May15, 2002. Pittsburgh City Council.Approving the request for change incontrol of the City’s cable systemfranchise from AT&T Corp. toAT&T Comcast Corporation. In461, 136, 612 June 25, 2002.Detroit. Resolution adopted byDetroit City Council, MI, put forthby President Mahaffey, December 9,1994. 2708-09 December 9, 1994.



27

28


69. Gosch, Stanley M. Attorney’s Letterto NLRB Re: Comcast Communi-cations, Inc. Case 18-CA-16873,Letter to NLRB Re: ComcastCommunications, Inc. Case 18-CA-16873. 2003.

70. Rusher.

71. NLRB. “National Labor RelationsBoard, Rules and Regulations,”http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/brochures/engrep.asp

72. Bronfenbrenner.

73. NLRB, Order consolidating cases,consolidated complaint and noticeof hearing; 6-CA-33841, 6-CA-33844, 6-CA-33846, 6-CA-33850,6-CA-33851, 6-CA-33853, 6-CA-33854; February 27, 2004, inNational Labor Relations Board,Region Six. 2004.

65. Section 8(a)(5) of the Act providesthat it shall be an unfair labor prac-tice for an employer to “refuse tobargain collectively with the repre-sentatives of his employees.” Sec-tion 8(d) of the Act defines “bar-gain collectively” as the mutualobligation of the employer andrepresentative to “meet” at reason-able times and to “confer” in goodfaith concerning the terms andconditions of employment.


67. “Metropolitan Area Communica-tions Commission Regular Meet-ing.” Beaverton, OR: transcribedby Kay Nimmo of Transcribe It,Beaverton, OR. December 17,2003.

68. Rusher.

74. Gosch, Stanley M., AmericanRights at Work Interviews, June,2004, Attorney for select locals ofthe Communications Workers ofAmerica.


76. Greenhouse, Steven. “Local 266,‘The Culinary,’ Makes Las Vegasthe Land of the Living Wage.” TheNew York Times, June 3, 2004.

77. Ibid.

78. Granelli, James S. “SBC, UnionAgree to 5-Year Pact.” Los AngelesTimes, May 26, 2004.

79. Ibid.

For a copy or bulk orders of

No Bargain, please contact:

American Rights at Work 1100 17th St NW, Suite 950

Washington, DC 20036

p 202-822-2127

f 202-822-2168

[email protected]

To download this report

electronically visit:

www.americanrightsatwork.org

1100 17th Street, NW • Suite 950

Washington, DC 20036

202-822-2127

www.americanrightsatwork.org

Documents

No Bargain: Comcast and the Future of Workers' Rights in Telecommunication