Judge says T-Mobile must disband T-Voice employee group

tmobilelogotlarge

Last year, a group called the Communication Workers of America (CWA) filed a complaint against T-Mobile for allegedly creating a company-controlled union. Now a judge has issued a decision on that matter.

Judge Sharon Levinson Steckler, a judge for the National Labor Relations Board, has ruled that T-Mobile must put an end to T-Voice. Steckler says that T-Mobile violated union laws with T-Voice by doing things like targeting employee pain points and having managers make the final selection of employees that would be representatives in T-Voice.

Among T-Mobile’s arguments were that the point of T-Voice was to focus on customer pain points and that “a few others slipped through the system.” However, Judge Steckler says that T-Mo credited T-Voice for raising paid time off and for other changes.

T-Mobile CEO John Legere responded to the judge’s ruling by calling it “ludicrous” and saying that T-Mo will appeal the decision.

While we wait to see what happens next, you can check read Judge Steckler’s decision and other documents related to the case right here.

Via: Bloomberg
Sources: CWA, NLRB

Tags: , , , ,

  • Gaius_Baltar4

    The CWA really needs to be called out and taken down.

    This was the group so pro Att buying T-Mobile that they were willing to state publicly that merger would INCREASE jobs in the US. All the while motivated by their own personal greed and potential of higher union dues with that merger. CWA is corrupt, plays dirty, and is full of crooks. They don’t care about workers.

    • Acdc1a

      There’s no way possible this ruling doesn’t infringe on the employees’ 1st amendment rights. How silly that a union puts their nose in the business of a company where they have no presence.

      • Richard H. Rahl

        Right, Acdc1a. In this battle in the war between workers and unions, the union won and workers lost.

    • Sean Sorlie

      Well said.

    • Richard H. Rahl

      Most off the CWA’s money is stolen from workers (union dues paid by workers wno don’t even want to belong). Simply have them pay back the stolen money.

  • Mark

    Let’s be clear here – the CWA isn’t just a group, it’s a union. Their interest is to recruit members and gain their dues payments. If T-Mo employees get helped along the way or not is inconsequential.

    • Sean Sorlie

      disbanding T-Voice does not help. It is a great group of people solving pain points.

      • Bryan Pizzuti

        T-Voice is competition. Unions generally don’t like competition. Why compete when you can legislate? And sue?

        • John Doe

          There is no competition because no other union can compete if T-Mobile employees are not allowed to discuss unions.

          Where is the competition exactly?

        • Bryan Pizzuti

          That would be T-Voice and similar programs implemented by other employers to address the needs and wishes of their employees without them having to go to (or pay for) a union.

          News flash, it may be illegal to prevent people from discussing a union in the office, but that doesn’t stop people from discussing it outside of the office if they really want one. CWA’s problem is that T-Mobile employees don’t want one.

        • John Doe

          Did you survey all T-Mobile employees and ask them if they want one or not? How do you know they don’t want one?

        • Bryan Pizzuti

          Did you survey them? How do you know they do want one? I know from asking a large portion of them. Some of them are here. I can understand it since I don’t want a union killing the Golden goose at my workplace too. We’re happy there and don’t want to pay dues for no benefit. Sounds like the T-Mobile guys are in a similar situation. If you have a good employer you don’t need a union. Simple as that. Unions are needed to combat BAD employers. When they try to force themselves in with GOOD employers they make themselves look bad.

        • John Doe

          Don’t deflect, you are the one that made the claim that T-Mobile employees don’t want a union so back up your claim with actual facts and stats.

        • Bryan Pizzuti

          I answered. You don’t like the answer, so you’re just repeating the question and hoping no one will notice.

        • John Doe

          What you offered were not stats…that was anecdotal evidence. T-Mobile is a big company and you and your friends do not represent every employee and that is the problem.

          Mic drop.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          The facts concerning how many workers choose unions in the US are well known. Check into it. That’s not anecdote.

          And it is hard to call T-Mobile’s actions “illegal” unless you are anti-worker liar: the case is being appealed and is not done yet.

          It will be interesting with more being appointed to the NLRB and judge positions since January who tend to favor the rights of workers over those of union bosses in such disputes.

        • John Doe

          No it is not well known you have not proved your made up stats.

          Right now it is illegal so until T-Mobile wins it is illegal, deal with it.

          Interesting because Trump loves the unions and was cozying up to them throughout the campaign when opposing NAFTA and TPP.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          I proved the factual statements I made a long time ago. It is not my fault that you are willfully ignorant and refuse to do this research..

          “Right now it is illegal so until T-Mobile wins it is illegal, deal with it.”

          Actually, it is legal until there is a court mandate. Which there isn’t. So deal with that.

          “Interesting because Trump loves the unions and was cozying up to them throughout the campaign when opposing NAFTA and TPP.”

          But it has always been well known that Trump, like most workers, favors the right-to-work-for-more.

        • John Doe

          No you did not provide an once of evidence or any of the source of your stats.

          And if you did…show me where because I can’t find where you got that 90% figure from or any of your other made up stats.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          “And if you did…show me where because I can’t find where you got that 90% figure from or any of your other [irrefutable facts]”

          A hint for those too dumb to research the issue; google the percent of union membership in the US.

        • John Doe

          I am not doing your work for you and you said 90% of employees said no to unions so back that claim up.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          You are being so willfully ignorant and disingenuous. It is exactly as if I had said that the sun came up in the east, and you said “back it up”. No, you need to do the work for YOU. Go find out union membership percentages in the US.

        • John Doe

          You are providing stats with no source.

          If I was your employer I would have fired you a long time ago. I don’t know about you but I was taught in school to source all my facts.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Again with the “source your facts” about a point of basic knowledge akin to the fact of the sun coming up in the east.

          But you are not my employer. Chances are, you are not an employer of any kind. and are more likely an oinking welfare pig in his mom’s basement.

        • John Doe

          That is not the same thing and you know it.

          I’m a pig on welfare and in my mom’s basement? lmao

          I guess your source is breitbart news. ;)

        • Richard H. Rahl

          It’s exactly the same thing, and I do know it.

          “I guess your source is breitbart news. ”

          Actually, it is the Center for American Progress, a leftist group.

          Now, why are you playing silly games over the % of Americans in unions?

        • John Doe

          You are not providing any evidence for your ridiculous stats.

          Please stop with this silliness, I told you backup your claim with a reputable source or shut up.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          “You are not providing any evidence for your ridiculous stats.”

          I have yet to provide any “ridiculous stats”. You are babbling.

          “Please stop with this silliness, I told you backup your claim with a reputable source or shut up.”

          I stated the obvious, and your questioning indicates you are either stupid or trolling. No, I will not shut up as long as you lie.

        • John Doe

          You have not provided your source.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Nor have I provided the source that the sun comes up in the east.

          You are quite lazy. But at least for the time being you have stopped lying about a contested policy (which the legal process is not through deciding) being “illegal” and smearing T-Mobile workers.

        • John Doe

          You have not provided your source.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          I don’t need to. The percent of workers in the US who choose unions is well know. You know this, but insist on playing a game. You are completely illogical, as your very racist view if history proves.

        • John Doe

          You have not provided your source.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          I did earlier, and you ignore it. You have lied about this case, and have lied about Affirmative Action. And are too stupid to know the percentage of union members in the US.

          You are on the wrong blog. Your 3rd grade education simply isn’t enough to keep up.

        • John Doe

          You have not provided your source.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          “[John Doe lie]”

          I did. I suggest you go look up the information. For the record, I don’t any obligation to repeatedly “source” basic knowledge to racists.

          I did provide the source. So, shut up.

        • John Doe

          You have not provided your source!

        • Richard H. Rahl

          I have already provided my source.

        • John Doe

          You have not provided your source.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          I have already provided my source.

        • John Doe

          sure /s

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Ke/yboar/d br/oken?

        • John Doe

          ok

        • Richard H. Rahl

          I did earlier, and you ignored it.

        • John Doe

          You have not provided your source

        • Richard H. Rahl

          I have provided my source.

        • John Doe

          You have not provided your source.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          I have provided my source.

        • John Doe

          You have not provided your source

        • Richard H. Rahl

          i have already provided my source

        • John Doe

          Sure /s

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Bryan: John is just repeating what the CWA has paid him to say.

          And this money he is being paid with is coming from workers forced to pay dues at other companies.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Bryan,
          John has a CWA talking points document in front of him. When confronted with something not on the talking points, he blunders around and blurts “illegal!”.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          “Don’t deflect, you are the one that made the claim that T-Mobile
          employees don’t want a union so back up your claim with actual facts and
          stats.”

          John, 90% of American workers say “union no”. And half want unions abolished. If T-Mobile workers are typical Americans, then it is reasonable to assume that few want a union.

        • John Doe

          That is a ridiculous way to find out lol you can’t run a survey on all american workers from different industries and different companies Lmao

          And I do not believe that 90% figure. The police and teachers love their unions so that 90% is just pure garbage. Show me where you got that number from.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          One does not have to run a survey.

          10% of workers belong in unions. That’s 10% who belong, and 90% who don’t belong and say no.

          Of this 10% who are in unions, a large percentage are forced to join against their will. In Wisconsin, this percentage turned out to be 40% (the percentage who left unions once right-to-work passed there. So that means much more than 90% say “union no”.

        • John Doe

          You still have not provided me with your source. You are just throwing percentages all over the place with no source. Also, we here are talking about T-Mobile not all unions or all employees.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          “You still have not provided me with your source”

          You are being disingenuous, and are some combination of liar and lazy. Anyone who is informed about the union vs worker situation in the US, from any side, will know the percentage of workers in unions, and how to get this information. If you are too stupid/lazy/ignorant to know this or even look it up, it is not my problem.

          ” Also, we here are talking about T-Mobile not all unions or all employees.”

          Invalid point. As a nationwide company. T-Mobiles employees are typical Americans. And typical Americans are anti-union. It is up to you to provide evidence that T-Mobile is way outside of the norm.

        • John Doe

          This comment is ridiculous. “90% of internet users find your comment stupid…don’t believe me? find your own source”

          You are saying I am lazy because I am not doing the work you are supposed to do. Back up your own claims, I am not going to do that for you LMAO

          T-Mobile employees are typical americans LMFAO how in the world are you going to compare wireless communications workers with farmers, cops, teachers, engineers, electricians, plumbers…that is just stupid and sad that I even I have to say this.

          You haven’t provided any evidence to support your claims and your ridiculous 90% figure.

          WE ARE TALKING ABOUT T-MOBILE HERE STAY ON TOPIC AND PROVIDE EVIDENCE OR SHUT UP AND STOP SPREADING FALSE FIGURES.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          I will never shut up as long as you lying about the struggle between the CWA and T-Mobile’s workers.

          “LMFAO”

          I see you are a trashy individual, bringing profanity to this forum. The pro-union anti-worker side is profane as well as liars.

        • John Doe

          trashy individual? lmfao

          I did not insult you but you just insulted me so you might want to reassess who the trashy one here is…LMFAO.

          Nice deflection though. Fake stats, no sources and insults…good job.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          “lmfao….LMFAO”

          Now you are starting to fly off the handle. I guess it is easier than disproving the facts about the poor popularity of unions among American workers (of which T-Mobile workers are a part)

        • John Doe

          You keep on making the claim…I never said that unions are popular

          LMFAO

          You said they are unpopular and 90% of workers say no to unions then prove your claim or shut the hell up.

          Man, I hope you don’t have a union cause if I was your employer I would have fired you along time ago just for being stupid.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          “….LMFAO….”

          You have nothing cogent to say.

        • John Doe

          You have nothing factual to say just rhetoric and fake stats.

        • SteveD

          Try this then John.. Why don’t you show us all the employees who WANT to unionize? 2 can play your silly game.

        • John Doe

          I never made that claim though so why should I?

          If you read my comments I said we don’t know if T-Mobile employees want a union but T-Mobile bans employees from discussing unions so you can’t know for sure and that is the point.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          “Try this then John.. Why don’t you show us all the employees who WANT to unionize? 2 can play your silly game.”

          He can’t. I already proved to him that typically less than 10% of American workers choose unions. He thinks that T-Mobile workers are hugely different. but has nothing to offer but hunch and profane outbursts.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Bryan: You mean you have a good situation at T-Mobile, and you don’t believe that having the CWA force you to pay hundreds each year to the Democratic Party will help you?

          Because that is the CWA’;s main business.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Bryan, well said

          “We’re happy there and don’t want to pay dues for no benefit”
          Typically the dues are for the opposite of benefit: in so many cases, union actions have forced entire workplaces to close.

          If the union prevents the company from doing basic management decisions and paying fair wages, it will go to where it can do this.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          “CWA’s problem is that T-Mobile employees don’t want one.”

          That reflects the American population as a whole. 90% say “union no”.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Of course T-Mobile workers can discuss unions. You are lying.

        • John Doe

          “The union and the company have faced off repeatedly in court. In 2015, a labor board judge ruled that 11 of T-Mobile’s employee policies violated federal law, including restrictions on workers’ discussions with each other and with the media.”

          Go read the bloomberg article that is the source in this blog post. They did and they also banned employees from discussing their wages/benefits.

          11 POLICIES WERE VIOLATED!

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Workers talk about T-Mobile stuff all the time on this and other forums.
          But what you are referring to is unprofessional behavior when employees claim to represent the company and lie to the media. Nothing wrong with a company stopping that.

        • John Doe

          It is wrong because it was found to be illegal. It is a sneaky way to ban unionizing that T-Mobile was found to a have broken the law.

        • Bryan Pizzuti

          “Wrong” and “illegal” are not synonyms. Don’t make me bring up Jim Crow laws as proof that sometimes laws are in fact WRONG. Oops, guess I already did.

        • John Doe

          That is a terrible example because at that time in American history it was wrong to desegregate blacks and white. Yes there were a lot of racists in america and they approved of Jim Crow laws and liked it. Our morals and values shape our laws and vice versa so the majority of people agree with the laws because if the majority didn’t they would change the laws…simple logic here.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          And now we have Affirmative Action, which is this era’s Jim Crow. It is legal, but rather immoral.

        • John Doe

          who said it is immoral? Americans owe a lot to African Americans…they built this country and they haven’t been compensated for their torture and slavery.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Your statement is racist and immoral. No one knows anyone anything unless individuals can be proven to have wronged other individuals.

          “.///they built this country”

          Lies which prove ignorance of history. People of all races built this country. And those who did this historically are all dead, and cannot be compensated.

          You are appealing to the naked greed and laziness of those who simply want to steal.

          Of course you are a fascist and a racist who believes that the child of a white Ukrainian immigrant who came here in the 1950s “owes” the child of a black immigrant who came here from Jamaica in the 1950s.

          Your immoral hatred of workers extends to people of the wrong race. Why not let go of the racism?

        • John Doe

          You are on the wrong blog.

          PS. I didn’t even read your comment.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Bigots always refuse education

        • John Doe

          On the contrary, I was well educated in the type of person you are. Good day.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Yes. someone who does not tolerate racism. While on contrast, you have a lot in common with those who wear white hoods and burn crosses. You really should shut up. You only made yourself look stupid with your anti-worker rants. Your racism is making you look dangerous now.

        • John Doe

          Sure /s

        • Richard H. Rahl

          That was word salad.

        • John Doe

          Ok

        • Richard H. Rahl

          “who said it is immoral?” Racism is immoral. I am not a racist, so I can easily say that affirmative action, which is designed specifically to persecute individuals for nothing other than having the wrong skin color, is quite immoral.

          I am not alone in thinking that racism is immoral. Look at what Dr King said:

          “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

          He never said he had a dream in which his little children would get cash rewards and special advantage due to what dead people did to their dead ancestors.

          “Americans owe a lot to African Americans..”

          No more or no less than anyone of any race. Of course I say this, as I am not a racist.

          “.they built this country and they haven’t been compensated for their torture and slavery.”

          Any African-Americans alive now who have been enslaved and tortured… along with anyone else of any other race.. .should be compensated by the individuals who perpetrated this. That is the only real justice. Anyone of any color who demands such “compensation” who had nothing done to them, to be given by innocent people deserves nothing other than harsh punishment, as it is purely greedy. We’d be a lot better off if such people were deported.

        • John Doe

          You are on the wrong blog.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          The CWA has broken the law by forcing workers to join against their will (illegal in the NLRA) and by using dues for political purposes. But I won’t see you complain about that..

          All I see is you saying it is “illegal” of T-Mobile to prevent the CWA, an outside campaign finance scam, from forcing all of its workers to pay it hundreds per year.

        • John Doe

          Idk know what CWA did and I don’t care because this is not about them this is about T-Mobile… this entire blog is about T-Mobile. If the CWA broke the law then they did, I don’t know anything about that but that is not the topic of this article nor is it the topic of this comment thread.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          ” I don’t know anything about…”

          Ignorance is a strength to you, isn’t it?

        • John Doe

          LIke I said this article is about T-Mobile so stop deflecting and get back on topic.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          I have been nothing but “on topic” about the T-Mobile end of the “unions vs workers” struggle, Mr. Topic Nazi. But thank you anyway.

        • John Doe

          Good now we can get back to the fact T-Mobile broke the law ;)

        • Richard H. Rahl

          “Good now we can get back to the fact T-Mobile broke the law ;)”

          More like an “imaginary assertion”. The matter on this is not settled yet.

        • John Doe

          The judge was not imagining anything

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Workers who aren’t in unions aren’t being forced to give money to fund mansions for the bosses, and to funnel to their masters in the Democratic Party. That’s why unions hate non-union workers and insult them, calling them “freeloaders” for working hard for a living, but not forking over $500 a year to the Hillary campaign.

    • Richard H. Rahl

      “et’s be clear here – the CWA isn’t just a group, it’s a union”

      Let’s be even more clear here: the CWA is a group that is primarily a campaign fund raising scheme and lobbying effort.

      But you hit the nail on the head that the well being of T-Mobile workers is the last thing on the CWA’s mind as it bullies workers and goes to court to crush the T-mobile rank-and-file.

  • Bryan Pizzuti

    Oh my god, a company put together a group to help it listen to its employees and be responsive to them. How horrible, what is the world coming to these days?

    • John Doe

      It is illegal

      • Bryan Pizzuti

        Then most companies are doing illegal things. Particularly when they ask their employees for input on making the workplace better. Again, oh the horror. Employers should just be evil so that employees go running to unions, so that union leaders can leach of off them at the same time as employers.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Exactly. It is insane to argue that unions bullying and robbing workers is the “answer” to “evil” employers.

          The last thing the CWA, or any union wants, is for workers to have a choice.

        • John Doe

          Still doesn’t change the fact what T-Mobile did was illegal but OKAY.

      • Richard H. Rahl

        “It is illegal”

        Thankfully, this law will be changed soon. Power to workers, not unions.

        • John Doe

          Well when that happens T-Mobile can do what it wants but right now it is illegal.

  • techjunkie

    this is why i hate unions well its just 1 reason union works work less than almost everyone else and yet they want the mist money and paid time off and causes the prices go up

    • DKBNYC

      You comment is just about as ignorant as your spelling.

      • Richard H. Rahl

        His comment is quite sensible: workers destroy the workplace and jobs, and for consumers, they degrade quality of products and services while making the prices soar.

  • Edward Ward

    I’ve always hated unions, and this just continues to fuel that hate.

    • Sean Sorlie

      Agreed. In some fields and with some companies they can be a positive thing, but this is a clear example of union abuse.

      • Edward Ward

        Yes, of course. The need for unions decades ago was critical for the protection of employees, but I think most of them have long since abandoned their honorable roots.

        • humpfh

          Oh, *most assuredly* those working for big blue and big red *desperately* need the protection of their unions. If Stephenson could get away with charging employees for the privilege to work under him, he would do so without any trepidation whatsoever.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Translation: the unions have a good racket with Big Red and Big Blue, stealing millions from workers, most of which goes to political campaigns and to fund the lavish lifestyles of millionaire union bosses.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          “: The need for unions decades ago was critical for the protection of employees”

          Not really. Over these decades, the unions forced companies to fire or offshore most of the workers in formerly huge mining and manufacturing sectors.

          It was good that the unions fought for workplace safety, of course. But it was bad that they fought for over paying workers. That was simply unsustainable, as it forces companies to fire many workers to pay a few more (or to simply go to another place where fair wages equal to the value of the work can be paid).

          So, while the mine workers union made mines safer, they forced the mining companies to fire the workers.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          True. Most of union money and effort goes to Federal election campaign fundraising. This has made unions quite unpopular. If the unions strove to actually focus on helping workers, they’d be a lot more popular with the American working class.

      • DetroitTechnoFan

        Fact is, complacency is the fastest way to lose everything you’ve earned. In Germany where T-Mobile comes from, union membership is strong, and wages are far better than they are here in America.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          “Fact is, complacency is the fastest way to lose everything you’ve
          earned. In Germany where T-Mobile comes from, union membership is
          strong, and wages are far better than they are here in America.”

          In Germany they have right-to-work: closed shop is illegal and there is no compulsory unionization. A marked contrast to the US. And they have high wages anyway. Yet another fact that shows that it is a complete lie that right-to-work is bad for workers and wages.

          You are right, complacency is the fastest way to lose everything we’ve earned: we must all fight for workers and against unions.

        • DetroitTechnoFan

          Fighting for all workers means fighting for the right of all to form or join a union. If it wasn’t a good thing corporate wouldn’t fight so hard to try and snuff it out, because one worker standing up for themselves might get steamrolled but if the entire shop of the best they can get all stands up for what’s right, the boss has no choice but to listen.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          “Fighting for all workers means fighting for the right of all to form or join a union.”

          T-Mobile workers can give as much money as they like. Or not. But if the CWA took over, all workers will be forced to join and pay $$$$. Keeping the CWA out of T-Mobile protects the rights of ALL workers to be associated with the CWA, or not, as they each see fit.

        • DetroitTechnoFan

          If you can’t see the flaw in your own statement, then I got nothing more to say.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          There is no “flaw”. Fighting for all workers also means fighting for the 90% who want nothing to do with the union.

          Also, anyone now, including T-Mobile workers, can join the CWA (it’s on the web site) and donate as much as they want. The workers have this choice. But once you get “closed shop” (forcing workers to pay dues), there is no choice: it’s pay to this group or be fired.

        • DetroitTechnoFan

          Wonder how quickly CWA representation would get passed if we had card check! Something tells me that it’d make your head spin. And can I get a SOURCE on that 90% number?

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Thankfully, card check is wildly unpopular and probably un-Constitutional. It isn’t even democratic, since it violates the principle of the SECRET BALLOT.

          “And can I get a SOURCE on that 90% number?”

          Are you that ignorant of the issues of unions vs workers?

          Go check to see the % of workers in unions…

        • DetroitTechnoFan

          Also, in many places, since we have “freedom to freeload” (right to work for less) anybody in a union shop still gets union representation even if they’re not a paying member.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Right to work = right to work for more….That’s why workers love this so much.

          But anyway…

          Let’s see unions call all workers who don’t pay union dues “freeloaders” in a national ad campaign, and watch membership plummet even more.

          What’s the difference between [1] working hard and making $15.50 an hour at a union workplace and [2] someone working hard and making $15.50 at a non-union shop is that some union thugs will smear the first one for being a “freeloader” for refusing to pay their hard earned money into some lobbyist fundraising club.

          You prove your anti-worker bias even more. The fact? Workers who work hard and earn their pay and don’t pay union dues… 90% of workers… are anything but “Freeloaders”. But feel free to go ahead and smear and bash the vast majority of America’s working class…

        • Richard H. Rahl

          “Also, in many places, since we have “freedom to freeload” (right to work
          for less) anybody in a union shop still gets union representation even
          if they’re not a paying member.”

          Also, what if these workers won’t want the “union representation” of the union fighting to get the company to fire a lot of people or even close the workplace entirely? Considering that when unions prevail, the results are catastrophic for workers.

    • Richard H. Rahl

      “I’ve always hated unions, and this just continues to fuel that hate.”

      Unions hate workers, so it is justified for workers to hate them back.

  • DKBNYC

    Um, John, Just don’t call it a Union.

    • Sean Sorlie

      No one does, but apparently that isn’t good enough. How dare he solve pain points without outside help from the CWA, right? so ridiculous.

      • John Doe

        “In January, the labor board ruled 3-0 that T-Mobile had illegally restricted employees from discussing the union at work.”

        Then why does he need to do things like that? If he is so confident that he is solving pain points without outside help why silence his employees?

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Thankfully, this is being appealed. And when it goes in front of a more pro-worker judge or appeals board and is deemed legal, I look forward to you apologizing for all the times you called this “illegal”.

        • John Doe

          Why would I apologize? Right now it is illegal and T-Mobile can’t appeal this.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Thankfully. T-Voice will continue, and will remain legal until an actual court mandate. And it will be appealed.

          https://www.androidheadlines.com/2017/04/t-mobile-ceo-tweets-promise-fight-t-voice-ruling.html

          Hopefully those involved in the suit will be fired form T-Mobile for engaging in unprofessional activity.

        • John Doe

          Lets see what happens then but at least you read a non-biased article for once in your life.

          “The ruling in question was handed down in no uncertain terms; it recommended the immediate dissolution of T-Voice, on the grounds that it was an illegal company-run organization. T-Mobile had been found to be openly hostile toward unions in the past, and had even come under fire for employee-unfriendly rules, such as policies that silenced victims of workplace harassment or forbid employees from discussing working conditions amongst themselves. On paper, T-Voice was supposed to be how the company put an end to such practices, but internal reports told a different tale. According to reports and employees, T-Voice did not seem to perform its intended function, instead running counter to T-Mobile Workers United, with some saying that it was a classic measure used against unions throughout history; a company-run alternative to traditional employee unions could take the wind out of unions’ sails, since they didn’t have any bargaining power without employees.”

        • Eric Young

          I’m curious, as you’re extremely passionate, if you even know what that T-Voice group even does. Because it seems like we’re just arguing for the union or not instead of the actual group that has helped change the company entirely.

        • John Doe

          Is there a question in there or just an arrogant and condescending reply?

        • Richard H. Rahl

          “Is there a question in there or just an arrogant and condescending reply?”

          The only arrogance and condescension here is from you toward T-Mobile and its workers.

        • John Doe

          I am pretty sure that question was not for you LoL

          Someone is really butt hurt…maybe some hydrocortisone will help?

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Leave it to the liar and worker-basher John Doe to bring anal sex into this conversation about the CWA’s war against T-Mobile workers.

        • John Doe

          lmao

  • Sean Sorlie

    T-Mobile employees DO NOT want to join the CWA, and this is the center of the issue. The CWA is trying to force us to join when T-Mobile takes care of its employees WITHOUT us having to pay a union. Every negative story you hear about working at T-Mobile is pushed by the CWA and is non-representative of the work environment. @JohnLegere, we appreciate everything you do for us and i look forward to seeing how you beat this!

    • John Doe

      T-Mobile employees do not have a choice because T-Mobile restricted them from talking about unionizing so they can’t join the CWA if they wanted to.

      Did you take a survey of all T-Mobile employees and ask them if they wanted to or not?

      YOU CAN’T…because T-Mobile bans employees from even discussing unions.

      • Bryan Pizzuti

        John, why is your source IP address owned by the CWA?

        • John Doe

          Lmao my ip address is from Verizon Fios at home and T-Mobile on my Nexus 6…Nice try though.

          CWA is a union not an ISP.

        • Bryan Pizzuti

          CWA is an organization that can be sold IPs and domains by ARIN and top level DNS authorities. Paid for by dues from their membership. Must be getting expensive if they’re trying to increase their revenues this way.

        • John Doe

          You know more than me LoL

          but please go on and share my “CWA IP address”

          LMFAO…this is just sad.

        • sorandkairi

          Lol what?!

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Good point. John is tirelessly arguing for the union and against workers like he is being paid to do so.

        • John Doe

          I have never argued for the union. I have argued against T-Mobile silencing their workers and the NLRB agrees with that statement as they have found them guilty on multiple occasions.

          And yes I am being paid millions of dollars by the CWA and I am using their IP address to covertly comment on t-mobile blog site /s LMFAO!

      • Your Mi Boy Blu

        CWA exists to ensure employee work conditions meet standards including OSHA.

        When I worked for TMO, one lady coworker complained about having to stand all day long in the stores. After TMO didn’t do anything, she complained to Department of Labor. After their investigation, TMO provided squishy floor mats for the areas people stand for an 8-hour shift. She also lost her job for filing a complaint.

        CWA also ensures certification, often including the training when necessary. Unionization is not a bad thing at all; especially for someone who wants to make wireless a career. They also have a pension which is guaranteed money unlike a 401(k) that can loose value.

        • Bryan Pizzuti

          On the face of it, not a bad deal….but you’re only addressing the benefit side of the equation. What’s the cost? What are the monthly dues that they have to pay in order to recieve these services? That’s there the sale is made or broken. From the reaction of T-Mobile employees that I’ve observed, they’re not buying yet.

        • Your Mi Boy Blu

          I have no idea what dues are. But in other industries (Police Union) dues are 2% of gross wages.

          I remember reading on a forum (similar to this one) that when Cricket Wireless unionized they also negotiated a Collective Barganining Agreement (CBA) to adequately cover dues costs, get an increase in pay, and also, annual increases to outpace inflation. Finally, and because they’re technically AT&T employees, Cricket employees also got access to better healthcare plans AT&T originally negotiated.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          “Cricket employees also got access to better healthcare plans AT&T originally negotiated.”

          Nothing is free. Companies are usually forced to cut actual dollar pay in order to make money available for non-monetary compensation (such as these healthcare benefits). This really isn’t good for the workers, who might rather have ALL the money and spend it as they and their families need.

        • DetroitTechnoFan

          I worked union for 16 years and the dues were an afterthought versus what I got out of my employment.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          And then you consider that most of the dues goes to political campaigns and making union bosses get rich. Assuming that the workers actually benefit or want the small part of the dues money that is directed toward the workers (i.e. unions pressing for situations that cause the local place to be closed down), it’s still just a small part of the dues paid.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Your: The CWA exists to force workers to pay dues which are mostly used for campaign contributions.
          Unionization is a bad thing because it forces companies to fire people.

          If you are good at your job, you will be paid well. If you are bad at it, you might want a union.

        • Pook

          Completely ludicrous statement. I see your dozen or more comments on this article and not one mention of what protects the workers from the company? It appears that in your fantasy that companies are just these doting grandfathers trying help their grandkids (employees) and these mean old unions are saying “you can’t give them any Werthers!” I understand that you are thoroughly entrenched in believing that jobs grow on trees and people are infinitely mobile to seek out other employment. That is of course not the reality that sane people live in.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          “…and not one mention of what protects the workers from the company?”

          Certainly not the union, that’s for sure.

          “It appears that in your fantasy…”

          Not a fantasy at all…

          “that companies are just these doting grandfathers trying help their grandkids (employees) ”

          I never mentioned anything about this, so you are making this up entirely. Good or bad, whatever the company does is no reason for unions to bully and rob workers.

          Now it seems like your logic is “companies are bad to workers, so we need unions to be bad to workers too”. That is not the reality that sane people live in, in fact most Americans reject this idea, and of course unions.

          ” I understand that you are thoroughly entrenched in believing that jobs grow on trees and people are infinitely mobile to seek out other employment”

          Interesting concept. I wonder who said it or implied it? Certainly not me. So go ahead and take it up with whomever raised this.

          Anyway, “seek out other employment” is what happens as the result of forced unionization. Visit Flint, Michigan sometime. Unions force companies to fire workers who refuse to give campaign donations, and in the long run they force factories to close and go where fair wages can be paid.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          So, go ahead, Pook, tell us how it makes up for bad employers to have union thugs steal from workers (most of which goes to political parties). The truth is, you will by lying. The American working class sees through the lie, which is why unions are extremely unpopular.

          And you will keep backing unions against workers as long as the UAW keeps paying you to.

        • Pook

          Are you suggesting I’m getting paid by the UAW? That check must be in the mail.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          I wonder why else you would make shallow anti-worker arguments.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Anyway, Pook, you come across as a rather harsh anti-worker activist.

      • Richard H. Rahl

        John. Incorrect. T-Mobile employees have the choice of whether or not to give money to the CWA, and how much.

        If the CWA has its way (along with a few T-Mobile employees who like the CWA because they are lousy at their jobs), all workers would be forced to pay dues.

        Thankfully, the new Presidential administration favors workers over unions, and the CWA’;s plan to enrich itself with forced dues won’t come to pass.

        • John Doe

          How is what I said incorrect though? T-Mobile did not allow its employees to unionize by having policies in place that practically banned it they had 11 policies that were ruled against the law go check the bloomberg article linked in this blog post.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Right now, workers are free to give as much money or as little money as they want to the CWA. If the “unionization” you desire occurs, then ALL workers will be forced to pay the CWA money to use for partisan political purposes.

          That is bullying and robbing workers, and must be prevented at least until we have national right-to-work. Which might be very soon. Then, even if a company is “unionized”, no one is forced to participate if it goes against their interest.

          You seem to think it is a good idea to force people to belong to political pressure groups as a condition of employment. Well, how would you like it if if you could be fired for refusing to give to the NRA? Of course you wouldn’t. But since you are anti-worker, you favor workers being bullied and robbed if is for a good cause.

        • John Doe

          It’s not like you don’t get benefits with a union. You are obviously biased because you are only looking at the negatives of a union. And I am not saying that T-Mobile employees should unionized I am simply saying T-Mobile is making it impossible for them to properly unionize and has been ruled against it multiple times.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          “It’s not like you don’t get benefits with a union”

          It’s a matter of opinion, and each worker will differ as to whether or not there is benefit to being in a union. Which is why right-to-work is so necessary.

          “You are obviously biased because you are only looking at the negatives of a union”

          Let each worker choose.

          “T-Mobile is making it impossible for them to properly unionize ”

          T-Mobile is doing nothing to hinder workers from giving any money they want to the CWA.

        • John Doe

          You clearly do not understand what properly unionize mean. Anyone can give money to anything they want that is not what I said though and the NRLB has found T-Mobile guilty multiple times.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          “You clearly do not understand what properly unionize mean”

          To you it is “proper” if everyone is forced to join whether or not it is in their interest. To me it is “proper” if each worker decides what their involvement with the union will be (the current situation at T-Mobile).

          Your rabid anti-worker bias is quite clear, even if your muddled strident “logic” isn’t.

        • John Doe

          Like I said before I am not advocating for unions so your statement is false: “Your rabid anti-worker bias is quite clear, even if your muddled strident ‘logic’ isn’t”

          My comment above:

          And I am not saying that T-Mobile employees should unionized I am simply saying T-Mobile is making it impossible for them to properly unionize and has been ruled against it multiple times.

          This article is about T-Mobile breaking the law, we are not here to debate the benefits and negatives of unionizing. The fact is T-Mobile broke the law multiple times if you don’t like unions then contact your representative and complain. Whining in the comment section of a blog post of T-Mobile breaking the law won’t help you.

        • Eric Young

          So If I came to you with a great idea to eliminate customer and employee pain points with a dedicated group of chosen individuals that have made an impact that wouldn’t be achieved in another logical way, you would want to make sure it burns to the ground because you weren’t involved in the decision making process?

          During my time at that specific location, people weren’t talking about CWA because the CWA was imposing themselves and forcing themselves into every conversation which was taking away from other peoples work and concentration. The majority don’t care because they do their job the right way and work hard to exceed. Reading the addressing of this in the CWA website is painful to read. People’s voices are heard and they catered to us just fine, even more so. I could call my VP if I wanted to. I can’t believe out of all companies out there, T-Mobile is targeted as one that doesn’t get their voices heard. There are so many changes that were happening when I was there that were changed because that T-Voice group took the ideas, suggestions, and pain points and got real changes made.

          Plus, that call center was retaining employees more than the history of it’s existence because employees love it there. I really think unions have their place, but it seems like the CWA is being overly attacking and non-understanding of things they can’t control.

        • John Doe

          That is not at all what this issue is about. It is not about what T-Mobile is doing to help their employees it is about what they are doing to silence them if T-Mobile is helping their employees properly then there is no reason for them to try and ban union but clearly there are employees that want to join a union and the union can’t do it job properly to negotiate with T-Mobile.

    • Richard H. Rahl

      Btw, Sean. your comments here, as a T-Mobile employee, prove that paid CWA agent John is lying when he keeps saying that T-Mobile has silenced workers from talking about unions.

      The campaign of lies about T-Mobile workers from the CWA reminds me of the SEIU’s long war against Walmart workers.

      I’m glad Legere is a fighter. And this might result in a court case and precedent to help all workers everywhere in the country to prevail against unions.

  • John Doe

    “The union and the company have faced off repeatedly in court. In 2015, a labor board judge ruled that 11 of T-Mobile’s employee policies violated federal law, including restrictions on workers’ discussions with each other and with the media. The company said at the time that the ruling was “about a technical issue in the law that relates to policies that are common to companies across the country.” In January, the labor board ruled 3-0 that T-Mobile had illegally restricted employees from discussing the union at work.

    At issue in the latest ruling was a provision of the 1935 National Labor Relations Act designed to prevent companies from using pseudo-unions controlled by management to drain support for independent labor organizing. “It’s a little bit flattering,” CWA organizer and former employee Josh Coleman said last year. “We have momentum; the company’s trying to stop it by copying our union.”

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-04/judge-tells-t-mobile-to-dissolve-company-controlled-worker-group

    This article is incoherent and does not fully explain the reasoning behind both sides. T-Mobile broke the law weather what they are doing was “right” or “wrong” does not matter because it was illegal.

    • Your Mi Boy Blu

      Right. Also, NLRB cases can’t be appealed. NLRB is the Supreme Court equivalent for lawsuits related to labor law.

      This wasn’t a civil or criminal case or lawsuit where issues can be appealed to a higher court. NLRB *IS* the highest court.

      • Richard H. Rahl

        Your: Hopefuly, the NLRB can be abolished in the next couple of years. Obama’s 8 years using it to enrich and empower union bosses at the expense of workers and their rights proves it must go.

    • Arysyn

      John, I’ve read all of your comments posted to this article, and I believe you are right about everything you’ve stated, even in defense of your positions towards people who’ve tried to debate/argue otherwise against you here regarding unions.

      A 2% dues fee is small change for the benefit of having a union. Seriously, no employee should ever complain about that considering the benefits offered by being in a union. I really doubt that every T-Mobile employee is against the idea of unionizing. Actually, I figure the number likely is quite large that employees do want a union, particularly retail employees. There is a tremendous amount of turnover at T-Mobile corporate retail stores, which by unionizing might help to keep those employees with T-Mobile.

      The only area I think might be true of employees not wanting to unionize, is the T-Mobile call center staff. There is a very weird cult-like culture there I’ve noticed from reading around on Twitter pages of some of the Executive Response staff I’ve spoken with, who post photos of the staff literally preparing their workplaces for visits by executives as though they are being visited by royalty, such as Callie Field being treated like she’s the queen and of course John Legere as the king, etc.

      • John Doe

        I am not promoting unions. I am just against what T-Mobile is doing trying to silence them and breaking the law. I have nothing against unions but at the end of the day it is up to employees not T-Mobile to decide if they want to unionize or not. I do think that CWA is acting in their own interest butif you are right and the law is on your side then that’s it.

        • Arysyn

          Certainly understandable, John.

          The problem I see here in the comments responding to you, is from people making blanket assumptions that there isn’t anyone working for T-Mobile who would like to unionize. These employees are kept quiet by policy put into place by corporate not to speak up. However, I also suspect there may also be pressure into silence by their fellow employees, those who represent the certain population working for T-Mobile who act as if they are working directly for God from being employed by T-Mobile,as if they were T-Noble worshipping the execs as the Un-Royalty. I figure these employees wanting to unionize are very afraid of being snitched by these types.

      • humpfh

        I worked at T-Mobile for 7 years (I no longer work there) and nearly everyone I met in a rather large office loved Legere. I’m sure there are employees who hate him, but I don’t happen to have met any. So I don’t know why anyone who likes him is “weird” or “cultlike”…

        • Arysyn

          I never said that anyone who likes John Legere is cultlike, nor weird. What I observed from several photos shared online by people who work at the T-Mobile call centers, were images of many employees doing some bizarre, quite odd things to show appreciation to their bosses at corporate, such as singing praising songs edited to being aimed at Callie Field and John Legere, and other various types of music done the same way too, along with conferences that were more like church worship of St. John Legere of the cross and Holy Mother Callie Field. I’m talking about extreme idolizing by these employees.

          Certainly this isn’t being done by every T-Mobile employee, and I figure there likely are hundreds, if not thousands who are working at T-Mobile just to have a paying job, not because of the status it gives them reason for to brag about. Many of these employees are not the type to spend several unpaid hours after work preparing large banners for the Callie Field welcoming/ please don’t fire us, we love you and will do any number of wacky stunts to show our deep appreciation – committee.

      • Richard H. Rahl

        “A 2% dues fee is small change for the benefit of having a union”

        What if the worker doesn’t want this 2% stolen to go to political candidates that don’t represent the worker’s interest?

        We need national right to work. So workers have a choice in whether or not to join.

  • TBD

    85 years ago when social media didn’t exist and people were lucky to have a landline phone or a car this law might have made sense. Today this is just silly, this makes it seem like the only time employee’s can speak and congregate is while at work. Everything is at peoples fingertips now and the CWA is using this old law from 1935 to play games and try and sneak people into their parasitic cult. Social media is the new aged union and is free, its easy to publicly destroy a company if they are treating their people badly, just look at what UBER is going through. CWA has been attempting this for 10+ years and has failed again and again.

    If anything CWA just shot their own foot as T-Voice is a very popular program and this will give CWA a very bad look to TMO employees. CWA just took away a great program that gave the chance to travel the country and develop job skills that most people don’t have the opportunity to.

    Why would we want join a union that just took something good away and give them our money?

    • Sayahh

      If that’s really true, then collective bargaining in Wisconsin would still be around and there would be no right-to-work (read: right-to-work-for-less) states.

      • TBD

        There will always be fring cases and data can be set up to show many sides. I have family members forced to pay high union dues they don’t want and get nothing in return. I’ve seen where I’ve double my salary in the same time a family member has flatlined in pay while their dues continue to rise. I’ve seen first hand what unions don’t do.

        There are many laws today that protect workers that were not in place in 1935 when a union was needed. The internet provides abundant info that is free and there are many paths to report companies if they are not in line. Social media allows people to get their voice heard and hold employers accountable and as long as people stay engaged and on top of their government officials there is no need for unions.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          ” I have family members forced to pay high union dues they don’t want and get nothing in return”

          This is why right-to-work is overwhelmingly supported by Democrat as well as Republican voters. And these union abuses have resulted in polls showing half of Americans want unions abolished completely.

      • Acdc1a

        How about the right to work at all? Compare unemployment in right to work states to mob…Err…Union heavy states. Go ahead, then get back to me. If you don’t like your wages or working conditions, get a new job.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Exactly… In forced unionization states, the unions have the power and the workers don’t. The workers lose the batter in such states, which was why before right-to-work, the UAW in Michigan forced the auto companies to fire and outsource hundreds of thousands of American jobs.

        • Sayahh

          Costco doesn’t have (or need) unions BECAUSE their wages are comparable or better than those in unions, from my understanding. It’s not about getting a better job, it’s about losing pay for doing the same job and getting screwed. I dine out EVERY DAY. I tip 15-20% EVERY TIME. I’m in the middle class and I realize that the more money people have, the more that they will spend and stimulate the economy. Sure, I notice and complain when prices go up, but if it’s a good product or service then they will still get my money. I don’t mind paying taxes; I just want it to go to things that are actually beneficial to everyone, e.g., roads, education or the military and their healthcare. I remember watching Billy Elliott (boo, liberal Hollywood drivel to you, probably) and seeing how the dad had to go back to work and swallow his pride, cross the picket lines just so that his son live his dream. So are you willing to tell coal miners to just quit and get a new job? If it were that easy, then there wouldn’t be any coal miners left. Scratch that: coal mining would pay a ton of money because there are no more people willing to work in the mines (supply and demand).

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Sorry, Say. Costco actually forces its workers into unions against their will. That is why they will never get my business.

          “So are you willing to tell coal miners to just quit and get a new job?”

          That’s what Hillary did. It might have cost her the election: it was a huge gaffe.

        • Sayahh

          I don’t like Hillary, but whether you know it or not, that quote was taken out of context, but I’m sure there’s no way to convince you otherwise. Its like my costumer who fell for the “Boston Tribune” story of how they will pay Obama’s mother in law for raising his children for the rest of her life. Sounds like nepotism and illegal to me, and I’d agree if it wasn’t real but why let facts and research get in the way of a good, fake story that panders?
          Yes, unions frequently try to organize Costco, but their employees vote it down, iirc, because their CEO isn’t greedy and has a conscience. Show me a link that says what you are claiming and I’ll gladly read it and admit that I was wrong about Costco not being unionized assuming, of course, it isn’t a fake story, though I’m sure that wouldn’t be the only reason that keeps you from shopping there even if aren’t union-controlled. That’s your choice–as a consumer, as a taxpayer, as an American and as a person with free will and more power to you.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          I am full aware of the context of her gaffe, and it was terrible in the

          context. As I am aware of the context of it, there’s no way you will convince me otherwise. However, what impact did it have on the election? I might have over estimated that. I have a hunch it did damage like Romney’s quotation about the 47% but I readily admit it is a hunch, and concrete facts can convince me otherwise.

          As for Costco and the unions. I have link for you. It’s from Fox News, of course…

          No, kidding…

          It is from the Teamsters themselves. I doubt they would be “fake” about this. What do you think?

          https://teamster.org/content/costco-workers-stand-together

        • Sayahh

          So that makes no sense. If you’re aware of the context, then how is it still a bad statement? I’m not trying to convince you, just trying to understand your thinking. As far of its impact? You can’t gauge its effect because you can’t speculate on what and how people think or process soundbites and hence there can be no concrete facts, only polls and speculations. If being honest is a gaffe, then one doesn’t need for a quote to be taken out of context as an attack. Since it did, then it must’ve been done because someone thought it would be effective. Not all advertisement are effective or even tasteful (no pun intended). Just ask Pepsi.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Hillary’s attack on coal miners is what made no sense. It was bad of her to want to see all coal miners fired, despite the context of presenting some sort of government help for the fired workers.

          Her bungle of flat out stating she wanted all coal workers fired was indeed a gaffe.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Say: Hillary hated the coal miners, and it showed. If she had good policy instead of ill intent, she would have supported them in their jobs in clean sustainable coal, instead of promising to impoverish their families.

          One can hardly expect Hilary to understand working people: she has lived her life on money stolen from taxpayers, and raking in millions form a charity scam.

      • Richard H. Rahl

        Collective bargaining still exists in Wisconsin, of course. The only difference is that workers aren’t forced to participate in it against their will. Workers’ rights are more respected. And that means all workers, not just the few who like unions.

        Right-to-work is really right-to-work-for-more. With right to work, workers keep more of their own money. and aren’t forced to give hundreds to campaign finance scams each year.

        There has long been a struggle between workers and unions. The positive reforms in Wisconsin have tipped the balance of power in favor of workers there.

        • Sayahh

          Yes, it seems unfair, and unions, just like corporations, can definitely be bullies. Luckily I work in a place where I voluntarily join a union and pay union due and contribute to (separate, voluntary) political funds. I realize and understand that not everyone is afforded the same opportunity, and I feel sorry for them because divided we do indeed fall, and indeed we have been divided and conquered… On a tangent, with consumer rights being slowly taken away, corporations take more money (and keep it thanks to arbitration clauses) and their money is exponentially louder than yours or mine, so you’re actually forced to give hundreds to campaign finance scams each year anyway, only indirectly (and out of sight and out of mind) but used against you even more.

          Yes, you do get to keep more of your own money. Paying less in taxes will also do that, but the society, as a whole, will suffer. Nobody will care if you have a pothole on your street because they will not voluntarily pay for it out of their own pockets. But hey, use that money you got to keep to get a new suspension. (Yes, I do sound smug, even to myself, but I guess I just know and am grateful for having a job that helps me pay the bills–along with responsible spending and investing. I can’t afford a house–and I know that–so I won’t make that purchase. If you think I’m smug, imagine me having even a million dollars or more. Money makes people think differently because of complacency, among other reasons, which is also why when people get temporary massive tax cuts, it’s hard to take it away even though it was always meant to be temporary to stimulate the economy, but I digress.)

          I’m very glad you have engaged in civil discourse. We are all looking for the same thing: keep people employed, free from harassment. It’s a back-and-forth battle and a delicate equilibrium has to be kept in order to keep one side from getting too powerful. Too much of a good thing is sometimes bad. Thank you for keeping it positive. Sometimes I wish I could be more like you, but it’s hard when people vote against their own best interests. (Not saying that you are, but a lot of people vote with good intentions are are misinformed. Again, not saying that you are.)

        • Richard H. Rahl

          “So you’re actually forced to give hundreds to campaign finance scams
          each year anyway, only indirectly (and out of sight and out of mind) but
          used against you even more.”

          Actually, you aren’t. What you are falsely referring to is actually others doing stuff with their own money. A sharp contrast from unions stealing from your earned wages to do this.

          “Yes, you do get to keep more of your own money. Paying less in taxes
          will also do that, but the society, as a whole, will suffer.”

          Not at all. The government is getting a record amount of tax dollars. What will suffer of we stop grossly overpaying taxes? Well, they might have to stop paying government employees $100,000+.

          “….temporary massive tax cuts…”

          There are no “massive” tax cuts. The tax cuts are minor, and even when all is said and done. the rulers still end up stealing way too much of the people’s money.

          Oh, about the potholes? We spend more on infrastructure than ever before.. so the problem is not the taxes. It is how the money is spent. Start by repealing “prevailing wage” and pay for the best contracts for these jobs. That alone would increase infrastructure funding by 25%, without one more stolen tax penny wasted.

          “…but it’s hard when people vote against their own best interests”

          Sorry, people vote the way they do BECAUSE it is in their best interest. You are arrogantly projecting your own views on others.

          “Not saying that you are, but a lot of people vote with good intentions are are misinformed”

          Your pro-union, anti-worker bias.. and also fascist bias (wanting the government to steal even more from us!) did show through. And I did my research: you won’t find a single thing in this I am “misinformed” on.

        • Sayahh

          “steal from us,” “your bias”: see? They’ve already turned us against each other. There’s only us. If my city is flooded, it isn’t limited to my house– If affects everyone. We’re all Americans. Government is already “stealing” from us. I don’t complain unless it’s using it for nefarious reasons and purposes. I don’t like getting swindled or getting gouged by a electronics store, why would I tolerate today from the government? I just want accountability, don’t you? Would you be happy if your blood pressure medication was just chalk and you cannot sue because of lobbyists? You proved my point with you’re pot holes example. It’s about accountability and getting the lowest bid is penny wiser and pound foolish because of cronyism, nepotism and no – bid, behind the scenes deals.

          I JUST said that you aren’t misinformed and you claim that you ARE NOT misinformed. Good job taking something we agreed on and somehow turning that into an attack. I was making a general statement of candidates, pundits and surrogates lying to the public and people falling for those lies. If you aren’t one of them then why are you so offended? I already said that you aren’t one of those people because clearly (no sarcasm) you have looked into issues you’re passionate about. Also wanting a funded, functioning government is hardly considered fascist. Liking to pay taxes is like me wanting to pay my phone bills on time. That doesn’t make me a telecom lackey. It makes me a responsible customer who doesn’t want to be sent to collections. I’m no more a fascist than you are an anarchist. And I work for a living so am a worker. I’m by no means a business owner or corporate CEO. I’m totally pro – worker because I’m pro me and I’m looking for number one: my own ass. So if course I care if people are getting screwed. Heck, I even care if honey bees are getting screwed because it affects everyone who eats, but just bees. But i digress. One of my oldest and closest friends threatened to punch me because of discussion regardibg this issue–unions , not bees–and we still text each other on birthdays and holidays and football season. Don’t hang out as much because he’s been ill, but again, neither of us are bad guys– we are just on different sides of the political spectrum and think that we’ve getting screwed by the Man.

          And yes, people are still misinformed left and right (no pun intended) every day. There is a reason why “the official story” had a negative connotation attached to it.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          ” Luckily I work in a place where I voluntarily join a union and pay
          union due and contribute to (separate, voluntary) political funds”

          That does not exist. All major unions use regular dues for political purposes. Sayahh, do you have a choice to pay NO union dues at all, and still work at that place?

        • Sayahh

          Believe it or not, yes to both questions! More than half of my co-workers don’t! And only 3 contribute to the political fund! And one of them works his ass off hard but not smart, if you ask me. If the union was so powerful as people think, he wouldn’t complain about anything. That’s why I’ve been having a beef with your statements. What’s true in my company and in my state isn’t true in yours and (clearly) vice versa. I reckon that would be different if the union (at least where I’m at) acted like thugs which they don’t.

        • Travis Hughes

          “Right-to-work is really right-to-work-for-more. With right to work, workers keep more of their own money. and aren’t forced to give hundreds to campaign finance scams each year.”

          That’s funny because actual statistics disagree with you and show that the states that adopted right to work have seen nothing but wage reduction and increased income inequality.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          The statistics do not, actually. The studies you might be thinking of are usually pushed by anti-worker activists like the AFL-CIO and leave out such matters as difference in unemployment.

          “Income equality” isn’t bad at all: some work is worth a lot more than other work. It would take an over reaching totalitarian fascist state to make all income the same. Like North Korea.

          Right-to-work does mean right to work for more. That’s why it is overwhelmingly popular with most workers, who feel they can better spend their money rather than have campaign fundraising groups like the CWA steal their wages.

          It is also clear you don’t want workers to have choice. This choice belongs to each worker. Tip the balance of power away from union bosses and toward workers.

    • Richard H. Rahl

      TBD: The last thing the CWA wants is for workers to have the choice in whether or not to join it.

    • Travis Hughes

      You are an idiot. Unions are part of a working economy. They are not “parasitic cults.”

      • Richard H. Rahl

        “You are an idiot”

        You are a liar.

        “Unions are part of a working economy. They are not “parasitic cults.”

        That is a lie. Unions get ahead by people quitting their jobs and loafing about not working at all.. “strikes”.. That’s not working, that’s being lazy. The real part of the “working economy” are those who cross picket lines and do something productive

        Unios are indeed parasitic. they get most of their money by forcing workers to pay it. It’s silly and stupid to claim that unions, which today are primarily a campaign finance fundraising scam, are part of anything other than the Left’s war on the working class. The money is stolen from workers and most of it goes to leftist political parties. This contributes to why workers say “union no”.

        So yes, you get coal miner unions forcing coal workers to pay large sums of campaign contributions to Hillary Clinton, who in return goes around and promises to destroy the careers of all coal miners. I suppose some coal miners might like this… but they should all have a choice to work and not be fired for refusing to fund this.

      • Eric Young

        The people that are ‘passionate’ about the CWA in that center are employees who are upset that they were held accountable to basic job requirements. I kid you not. They mistake accountability as being targeted/treated unfair.

      • Richard H. Rahl

        Again, unions are not part of a working economy. Unions, after all, make gains by people quitting their jobs and loaf instead of working (Called “strikes”)

        90% of American workers are non-union. They work hard and receive fair wages. I am sure that if that unions were abolished and that 10% no longer had to pay a large chunk of their wages to union campaign finance scams, the economy would work even better.

        The “parasitic cult” description, upon thought, is pretty apt.

    • Richard H. Rahl

      And TBD, remember that the CWA’s war on T-Mobile workers by means of frivolous lawsuit was paid for with dues money from workers at other phone companies. Dues money the workers had no choice but to pay or be fired.

      So, in regards to your other comment, this is the “benefit” of paying union dues: the money goes to harm the interests of workers at OTHER companies.

    • Richard H. Rahl

      TBD said: “Why would we want join a union that just took something good away and give them our money?”

      A question workers across the US ask. And only 10% say “Yes they want to join”. And hostile actions like from the CWA have led to polls showing half of workers want unions abolished.

      ” its easy to publicly destroy a company if they are treating their people badly, just look at what UBER is going through.”

      Exactly. And unions don’t destroy companies for treating people badly. They destroy companies for not forcing workers to pay for political campaigns and the lavish lifestyles of union bosses.

  • Limeybastard

    God bless capatilism.

    • Richard H. Rahl

      Yes, indeed. Capitalism is preferable to socialism.

      Property belongs to the people, not the rulers.

      • Travis Hughes

        That’s funny, because all the wealth and property belongs to a self-styled neo-aristocracy and definitely *not* “The People.”

        You don’t understand Democratic Socialism, so you will never understand how bad capitalism really is.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          “That’s funny, because all the wealth and property belongs to a self-styled neo-aristocracy and definitely *not* “The People.”

          I look around at all I see. I own it. and it is not owned by an imaginary aristocracy.

          “You don’t understand Democratic Socialism”

          I understand Democratic Socialism perfectly well:

          Socialism = Hitler and Stalin and Mao

          Democratic Socialism = Elected Hitler and elected Stalin and elected Mao.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          The People refers to individuals. The people who create the wealth and freely exchange it. That is capitalism. In socialism, “the people” refers to the tiny handful of dictators at the top.

          It is so ironic that you advocate left-wing fascism (socialism) here, when in most socialist systems, you would be murdered for speaking out. Perhaps you are hoping that when American’s Stalin comes to power (the hope of American socialists), you are enough of a bootlicker that you will survive.

          Yes, capitalism is bad, horrible, etc. The worst! Except for every other system.

          Now, go back to building death camps. It’s what socialists are the best at.

  • Arysyn

    Reading through all the comments here definitely shows there are strong opinions for and against unionization. My belief is there ought to be a union to represent workers at T-Mobile, but with the provision that joining the union isn’t required. Also, there should be the option to start or join competitive employee unions, not just one union representing telecom workers.

    However, I don’t have the view of these unions being so evil, especially in their size, because it takes that strength in numbers for unions to demand better conditions for their membership. If unions are forced to compete as businesses are, then perhaps unions would provide a better value than they do now, which might sway those thinking they are being robbed by paying dues. Although of course joining a union should be optional, though again this doesn’t mean unions should go away.

    Regarding T-Mobile, I can see both positives and negatives with the company having its own internal union of sorts. However, as John has been saying here, T-Mobile should not restrict its workers from discussing unionization. If employees wish to discuss that, they ought to be able to. As I’ve been saying here, I think the retail store employees would be most likely to want a union, whereas the call center employees seem to be as happy as birds singing on a clear, sunny spring morning. From everything I’ve seen of them in photos, it looks more like a vacation than work at the call centers. Although, things are very different at the retail level from what I know.

    • Richard H. Rahl

      “However, as John has been saying here, T-Mobile should not restrict its workers from discussing unionization”

      Ummm. we have had T-Mobile workers here discussing unionization.

      • Arysyn

        Yes, but as I understand the situation from John Doe, these employees are not allowed to discuss unionization among themselves towards other T-Mobile employees openly at work, even during their break times while at work.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Given the unfortunate situation with US labor law where a rigged union vote can end up forcing everyone in a workplace to join a union even if they don’t want to, I don’t blame T-Mobile for not wanting these thugs to gain a foothold there. And it is the workers who would suffer the most, as once the union gets entrenched, it would force T-Mobile to fire a lot of people or even offshore a lot.

        • Arysyn

          I wonder if perhaps these big unions would be attacking of smaller employee-led unions,if they were to start. As I’ve mentioned several times here, I think there would be a major split between T-Mobile retail and call center employees in any such potential poll among them, which John Doe appears to suggest there ought to be if T-Mobile allowed it.

          Therefore, I think it would be difficult for a big union to win with enough T-Mobile employees, though the employees may be more united in favor of a non-business and non-big union led group representing them. This surely would make it interesting to see what the CWA would say/do about something like this.

    • Travis Hughes

      “My belief is there ought to be a union to represent workers at T-Mobile, but with the provision that joining the union isn’t required.”

      Then what’s the point? Do you not get it? Unless being in the union grants them benefits that not being in the union doesn’t, then this is ridiculous. And guess what? If the above is true, T-Mobile would make sure their new hires didn’t get involved in the union because it’s cheaper for them.

      It’s like people don’t get the point of a union.

      • Richard H. Rahl

        Yes. T-Mobile wants to pay fair wages, and wants only qualified managers to make basic management decisions. The unions prevent this.

        • Eric Young

          Honestly, T-Mobile pays very well. If you want paid more, do the work. I’ve never seem a job give you no limit on bonuses for actually doing your job. In cases, there are basic reps that make as much money as a managers base pay because of all of the extra compensation. I wonder what would restrict that….

        • Richard H. Rahl

          ” If you want paid more, do the work”

          That’s the way some of us were taught. Unfortunately, it’s not that way for all.

      • Arysyn

        Travis, I’m not against unions, unlike Richard. I am pro-union. Also, as John Doe has stated here many times, there isn’t a way to know right now how many T-Mobile employees want to unionize versus how many do not want to unionize. I believe there ought to be a massive poll taken, im finding out about this issue. Problem is, as John Doe has also mentioned here, is that T-Mobile has been restrictive when it comes to discussion of unionization amongst employees. Therefore, it is difficult to know the answer to this, and whether or nor it even is viable to T-Mobile.

        This is why I’ve given the best guess to it that I can come up with, based upon what I do know about T-Mobile, in regards to which employees I think would want a union and which employees I doubt would want a union. I think the answer to this issue would be to give employees a choice, not only between being in a union or not, but also among different unions representing employees in the industry, which would create helpful (in many ways) competition amidst unions, and drive them back towards being true to their original, genuine intent of being honest defenders of employee rights.

        Otherwise, I can understand why certain individuals, such ad Richard, are against unions. However, I think their opinion has more to do with unionization being forced upon workers, rather than the fairness of employee choice, which is the right and proper thing to have available for all employees.

      • Richard H. Rahl

        “It’s like people don’t get the point of a union.”

        The point of a union in today’s world is to steal millions from workers to give to politicians. Then they sell workers on the idea of “better pay”, while hiding the fact that it is a zero sum game: other workers are fired in order to get the money for “better pay” for a few. And the end result is the union forcing the company to go to Mexico. That ‘s the point of today’s unions. As a result, few Americans like them at all.

  • Travis Hughes

    Okay, forget it, I’m out. There’s far too much anti-union idiocy in this comment section.

    • Richard H. Rahl

      Sorry I am too pro-worker for you. Defending the rights of workers not to be forced pay hundreds into a political campaign fundraising scam is not “idiocy”.

      • humpfh

        Anti-union is anti-worker, nitwit.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Sorry, you lied, union thug.

          Most workers are anti-union… and the reason why is that unions steal from them and get them fired. It is clear that your war is with America’s working class.

          And that is why you get anti-worker rhetoric from union thugs who call anyone who works hard and earns their pay but doesn’t pay off the union a “Freeloader”, and people who get off their a** and do something productive when the union tries to prevent it as “Scabs”. The union hatred and insults for people who work hard and earn their money are quite strong. Keep it up, you and your anti-worker union thugs friend. and union membership will drop from 10% down to below 1%.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Also, considering the fact that much of what unions fight for at the federal level involves taking rights away from workers, that is strong proof that anti-union means pro-worker.

  • Eric Young

    I used to work at that location last year and I can say that this is all insanely stupid. No one cares who talks about the unions, really, it’s a fun topic at times. What is awful though is that the CWA almost forces themselves into the workplace. They would stand in front of cars and not let them into the parking lot until they took a stupid flyer. Heck, even some of the union reps have/had their union crap posted all over their desks. No one cares or forces anyone to do anything there or else that nonsense would be taken down. What’s most upsetting is the CWA group is complaining about a group form by T-Mobile that has solved so many pain points for customers and employees, making the job loads easier for everyone. I personally would rather a manager know who to pick then someone who doesn’t do anything get a project like that. This case is the kind of thing is what pushes a businesses’ productivity backwards, in this instance. Also, I know the union supporters that are trashing on this center are past employees that didn’t do their job well and felt like it wasn’t their fault. I imagine where ever they work at now they are doing the same annoying things and failing at their job.

    • Richard H. Rahl

      Eric: I can’t imagine that the CWA, which uses most of its money collected to donate to political campaigns, is a popular topic among T-Mobile workers.

      ” Also, I know the union supporters that are trashing on this center are
      past employees that didn’t do their job well and felt like it wasn’t
      their fault.”

      Exactly. Unions DO provide benefit for people who are bad at their jobs. slack off and loaf, steal from the workplace and damage property. So it is among these bad workers that you will find the most support. If you are actually good at your job, you won’t need a union.

  • Arysyn

    No offense to anyone here using the term “pain point”, since after all, it is a commonly used term nowadays to describe a problem with wireless service, which its use isn’t the fault of those using it as a form of common language. However, I really hate the term itself. Again, nothing against those using it. Although I’m hoping some other term will come along to replace it, and knowing how human language works based on social interaction, these particular habits break easier than others.

    Actually, I’m surprised society hasn’t given these problems some dumb, cute-sounding name in attempt to demean the very nature of problems in the pc-friendly quest to rid society of “negativity”, no matter how real much of negativity is in the world, in favor of blind “positivity”. Hence saying the word “pain”, ought to be pretty far-out in today’s culture, as should the term “far-out. Considering these emotional sensitivities to real physical issues, a pain point could be changed to “painsies”. Oh wait, no that wouldn’t work. Sounds too similar to other derogatory words. Then again, pain isn’t an accurate word for these situations.

    I could go on with why “pain points” is a bad term to use in describing anything but actual pain. Wireless problems may be an aggravating annoyance, but it certainly isn’t pain. Same thing I think about the issue of unions. I doubt anyone is being hurt by them, though those not getting value out of their dues, ought to have the choice not to be forced into paying them to be part of the union. Besides, what may be construed as a pain point to some with unions, or any aspect of wireless, might be something someone else considers a blessing.

    • Richard H. Rahl

      ” though those not getting value out of their dues, ought to have the
      choice not to be forced into paying them to be part of the union.”

      That is the whole point behind right-to-work. That those who get nothing out of the dues, or are in fact harm by the efforts the dues are funding, have a choice to keep the money and go about their job.

      After all, union membership has no connection to one’s ability to do a job or not, so it is insane to fire someone for refusing to pay dues into a club like this.

      • Arysyn

        The system of forcing someone to pay dues isn’t fair, and that we can agree with, despite my being pro-union (with choice to join or not, of course).

        Hopefully the right-to-work initiatives take place. Also, I think there really ought to be further discussion within T-Mobile regarding the direction employees wish to take, so long no one is forced to accept something for themselves they do not want.

        My personal opinion still is that I think there would be a split in what T-Mobile employees want between retail and call center jobs, where I’ve noticed a pretty big difference in the general outlook of those employees.

        • Richard H. Rahl

          That sounds sensible.

          Right to work only means “workers quit unions in droves” IF the unions are truly awful. Union membership actually increased in Indiana right after right-to-work. And that is fine with me… despite our disagreements, I am OK with what each worker chooses.

        • humpfh

          What “right to work” actually means where it’s been implemented is your employer can fire you for any reason, justified or not, with no repercussions. I’ve worked in a “right to work” state for years, and it’s the biggest bullshit ever sold to the gullible public.

          Your boss has a personal problem with the color of your shoes that are within company regulations? S/He can fire you, no questions asked. (The *company* may have regulations, but that doesn’t prevent the boss from completely fabricating crap).

        • Richard H. Rahl

          Nothing of what you said is true. What right-to-work means is that you can’t be fired for joining outside clubs that have nothing to do with doing the job.

          “where it’s been implemented is your employer can fire you for any reason, justified or not,”

          This simply isn’t true. What is true is that where there is no right to work and there is closed shop, workers get fired for refusing to give campaign contributions.

          “Your boss has a personal problem with the color of your shoes that are
          within company regulations? S/He can fire you, no questions asked.”

          An entirely made up example. Want a real world example? So many times I have read in the news of teachers raping students in schools. The school tries to fire them. The union keeps them in the classroom. The reality is that it makes no sense to fire workers for bad reasons.

    • Botiemaster

      “I could go on with why “pain points” is a bad term to use in describing
      anything but actual pain. Wireless problems may be an aggravating
      annoyance, but it certainly isn’t pain”

      Oh, you’re one of THOSE people. You understand what the term “figuratively” means and why it dismantles your entire tirade? >.> <.< There's bigger things in the world begging for your attention, things that would benefit your time. Let this go lol

      • Arysyn

        Yes, I understand the term “figuratively”, but that still does not change my opinion of the matter. It isn’t as if those here who are anti-union are calling dues they do not wish to pay “pain points”, etc. Actually, it is more effective for them to be calling it as they have been, by using words such as “unfair, unjust, etc.”, which really are more appropriate terms for what it is.

        Of course though, this is not meant as a tirade, nor a “huge” deal. It is just meant to show using more accuracy in words to describe things could produce better results, as I tried to show in the full context of my comment. I ended it short of giving more reasons that may have made my point more understood, but in the space provided, I wanted to let it drift into the connection I was making between that and the topic of unionization, which I think I did well enough, considering.

  • Richard H. Rahl

    “If you have deluded yourself Stephenson gives even the tiniest shit
    about his employees, I’m going to have to ask you how much he’s paying
    you.”

    If Stephenson didn’t care one bit about his employees, he’d have none of them.
    humpfh: nothing is stopping you from giving as much or as little money to any union you wish.

    ” It just seems like you hate unions and are determined to declare that anyone who disagrees with you for any reason is stupid.”

    No, but the fact is they are stupid and ill intentioned to want to force people to be in unions against their will.

    I don’t think anyone should be forced to join the NRA or the Sierra Club. Does this mean I hate these clubs? No, of course it doesn’t. The same about unions.

    And as for your family members, what about those at their workplaces who feel that the unions aren’t necessary at all? Screw them, you say. Unlike you, I support both sides: both informed choices.

  • Richard H. Rahl

    So, 8% of Costco workers are bullied into paying into a campaign fundraising scam (Teamsters). It should be 0.

  • mikeZo6

    No comment

  • Have you at any time cashed in some huge cash without offering it for sale any-thing and without working at any of the referral marketing sort of work without having to make an investment something. I wanted to inform you of a job whereby all of techniques is certainly provied to you and as a consequence it really is a very simple and also not hard job. Without requiring to launch your website domains etc., everything is certainly presented to you free of cost. Visitors will likely have a look at your internet-site so you are able to get money for that. Its as simple as that. I am creating some huge cash in a home office through this job exactly like 20 thousand bucks per 30 days or maybe more in case likewise you really want to take home money very similar to that so therefore follow these extremely easy tips by surfing this web-site >>>>> OLAURL.COM/15cpe