AT&T Suggests To 300K Employees To Lobby the FCC 239
Several readers sent in the news that AT&T's top lobbyist sent a letter to all 300,000 employees urging them to give feedback to the FCC as it gears up for rulemaking on net neutrality. He even supplied talking points approved by the PR department. The lobbyist, Jim Cicconi, suggested that employees use their personal email accounts when they weigh in with the FCC. Pro-net-neutrality group Free Press has now likened Cicconi's letter to astroturfing: "Coming from one of the company’s most senior executives, it’s hard to imagine AT&T employees thinking the memo was merely a suggestion."
There FCC! (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, subtract 1.2 million because the American family averages 4 people and you know that every AT&T employee will have their spouse and 2 kids lobby. And, if you include the bogus ones that are named for the dog, well, the numbers just keep growing.
Let's just put it this way, every letter against Net Neutrality is bogus because of this.
Verizon did this as well (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a Verizon employee and received an email sent to basically all different sub-companies and departments about this. They even created a theme site about it, how to take action in different ways...
Will be trying to switch job soon.
FCC sill has not given US radio space. (Score:3, Interesting)
After that, perhaps a work program can be set up to run backbone lines as a way to make jobs for people out of work. It's all about creating the infrastructure.
Re:Not entirely the same (Score:5, Interesting)
What you do at your home should be purely divorced from your work.
I agree 100%
A couple years ago I had a similar situation happen to me. It was suggested in a mass-email to comment on an anti-spam law, except to do so against the bill (IE to favor spamming)
This sort of took me by surprise, as I worked in the IT department, and at the time we did NO email advertisements, nor used any services to do so. So I figured, why on earth would this be the case unless A) we planned to spam, or B) the boss simply didn't understand the matter.
I made the same asumption. What I do on my own time and from my own email address is not work. If they want that time, or those resources (email), they are damn sure going to pay me for them.
I silently ignored the request.
Half a year or so went by and I forgot all about it. I came in on a Monday to learn that the FCC comment postings are public record, and you can lookup the email/name of everyone that posted.
Needless to say, my name was no where to be found.
At this point I was given some team player speech and told why in pretty blunt terms. After explaining why I do not agree, and that it would be a death sentence for our company to advertise that way.
Boss made the stupid mistake of explaining the errors of my ways in email.
He asked me to resign, which I refused. The next day I was fired.
Fortunately for me, this is not a valid reason to terminate someones employment, and I got a nice settlement out of the lawsuit to live on before finding my next job.
Oddest part of the whole story, that company STILL does not spam that I can tell, or that any of my ex-coworkers in their IT department know of. I am left with the belief that the boss had other reasons for this, not related to that company.
Who knows what type of business he does on the side after all.
In the end, I am very happy with the new job I found, and have no regrets over what happened.
Just thought I would share.
Re:How is that possible? (Score:3, Interesting)
I get all the food for my family from a regional supermarket chain. They're the reason I can EAT. Does this mean my political views should align with the president of the supermarket's?
No. Work is just somewhere I happen to trade my time for money.
Re:Please People, You're Spreading Misinformation (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Difference is the union has more power over you (Score:1, Interesting)
I do. I recall tainted food at work being thrown out. I recall my dad coming home with his car vandalized, even though the parking lot had extreme security. Try crossing a picket line. THAT is disagreeing with the union. But it does, however agree with feeding your family. You don't cross a picket line. You don't try to raise up votes against what the union LEADERS want. Unions are pretty akin to the working socialism of Russia past, as I recall it. The "elected" make the decisions via suggesting how to vote, as a group. Teamsters et al don't work and lead, they simply leech a small contribution from every member for their magnificent insight and "protection" from those nasty employers.
Unions also allow anyone with seniority to do a great deal less than those around them without consequence. Disagreeing with your union steward on some random talking point won't get your family killed. Gathering steam in a campaign to remove the union, or go against its will might.
For an interesting fact-hunt, look up some articles on unions and their illegal doings.
Re:Please People, You're Spreading Misinformation (Score:4, Interesting)
My understanding of the US industrial landscape is scanty, but I've been told that in a minority of cases there are still "closed shops" (I know they aren't called that in the US) in industries like construction. And, yes, for all practical purposes, being a member in those instances probably isn't optional. But that's a very small minority of cases.
The main reason people join - and stay in unions - is not because they are forced to. It's simply that unionized workplaces have higher wages and lower accident rates (once industry differences in these rates are factored out). Relying on the employer to do the right thing is noticably flawed as a strategy
Re:Please People, You're Spreading Misinformation (Score:1, Interesting)
Collective bargaining is a good thing. Striking for a livable wage and safe working conditions is a good thing.
Preventing people who show up drunk from being fired because they have not exceeded their monthly infractions quota is a bad thing. Blocking people from getting a job in an entire industry (not just a single workplace) because they don't have a relative or spouse in the union is a bad thing. Throwing the force of the unions behind unrelated political issues in exchange for personal favors to the union leadership is a bad thing. These are things that have become practice as usual from US labor unions, and I know because I have friends on the inside of the UAW (United Auto Workers), USW (United Steel Workers), and a cashiers union that tell me all the same stories.
The problem with US labor unions is that they became larger than the corporations that employ their members. It used to be that unions called a strike to correct problems significant enough that people were willing to loose weeks or months of income and risk loosing their jobs or sustaining bodily injury. But modern unions, like the UAW, can call a strike over trivial matters because there is no risk. Members still receive nearly full income while on strike and there is no chance of loosing their job. If they are laid off as a result of a strike, they are practically guaranteed a new one as soon as one becomes available, although they might have to relocate. Eventually, the labor unions will push their industries so far that they simply collapse, and we are seeing that happening now with the US automobile industry.
I think the solution is restrict the size of unions. One union to one employer. That's it.