Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Verizon says to shed 10,400 jobs by mid next year

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 215 posts

Re: Verizon says to shed 10,400 jobs by mid next year

#171

Post by darawk »

padseeker wrote: post #152
darawk wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At no point was that ever insinuated Are you serious man? Why be so dishonest? It's clear as day that that's what you were insinuating. Why lie like this?

The point is so simple and straight forward I question your ability to carry on this conversation. It is bloody obvious what I'm trying to say. The idea is that we have a problem, a stagnating economy, lack of jobs and stagnating wages. The prescribed solution to this problem was tax cuts. So if you still having large scale layoffs then it appears that maybe the SOLUTION is not quite solving the PROBLEM. Instead I ne…

> So if you still having large scale layoffs then it appears that maybe the SOLUTION is not quite solving the PROBLEM.

And you were responding to this thread. Which means you were citing Verizon as evidence of your point. Which people the completely correctly compared to anti-global-warming people citing snow as evidence against global warming.

Re: Verizon says to shed 10,400 jobs by mid next year

#172

Post by tracker1 »

paul7986 wrote: post #135

So are they going all 5G for residential Fios broadband ... offering FIOs nationally over 5G? For consumers that would be great and I’m sure other carriers would follow. If they do Comcast will suffer and millions of consumers will have a choice of residential broadband vs. only one player. Thus I wonder if these job cuts are happening mostly in their wireline business that’s unionized?

I'm not entirely sure... Wireless is shared bandwidth and fairly constrained, even with 5G tech. Interference is another huge issue if they tried. It would be somewhat nice for more rural areas where broadband feels like it's stuck in the late 90's (even in areas not so rural).

It's also worth noting that Verizon is also the most expensive wireless carrier out there by a pretty good margin. I only use them because when I'm on road trips, they're often the only provider I get signal with. If I were just in town, I'd probably switch to a lower cost carrier, and rely on wifi more.

Re: Verizon says to shed 10,400 jobs by mid next year

#173

Post by rayiner »

hayksaakian wrote: post #28
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #12

At least the described severance benefit might be on the correct order of magnitude to be considered reasonable and not totally and odiously evil, “As part of the separation program, the employees will get a salary of up to 60 weeks, bonus and benefits, depending on the length of their service, Verizon said.” This is why I always advise people to negotiate significance severance benefits up front, on the order of 6 m…

If it's "up to" 60 weeks like they offer "up to X" internet speeds, then they're selling the best case but probably delivering half that.

I get you're trying to make a joke, but it's a weird criticism of Verizon specifically. Every FiOS circuit I've had over the last 15 years, except for some growing pains with gigabit, has tested at 10% over its rated speed. Verizon also has particularly generous compensation: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/business/verizon-workers-... (union members make $130,000 on average in salary and benefits).

Re: Verizon says to shed 10,400 jobs by mid next year

#174

Post by tracker1 »

padseeker wrote: post #165
root_axis wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politically, I agree with you, but your comment is akin to when republicans blast global warming when a snow storm blows in. Pointing to a single data point as a summary of something super complex is always silly.

That's a fair criticism. One wave of layoffs does not constitute evidence that the tax cuts are a failure. Still the economy is going in an upward direction, and Verizon isn't shrinking. Why are they laying off 10K people?

They're the most expensive carrier in a highly competitive market that will likely get more so in the next 3-5 years.

Re: Verizon says to shed 10,400 jobs by mid next year

#175

Post by ryandrake »

empath75 wrote: post #43
sdinsn wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"voluntary separation" might as well be lay-offs, because if they didn't get enough volunteers they would have laid people off without giving them a package.

I volunteered for a lay-off when they merged Aol and yahoo because I had recruiters breathing down my neck offering me big raises to leave anyway. I got enough in the severance and signing bonuses to pay off a new car and pay for most of my wife’s masters degree.

One of my major career regrets was leaving a job about 6 months before they offered voluntary layoffs with generous severance. I was already grumpy with the job. If only I held my nose and stuck around those six months, I would have been first in line for the package!

Re: Verizon says to shed 10,400 jobs by mid next year

#176

Post by anticensor »

mindslight wrote: post #33
hayksaakian wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's "up to" 60 weeks like they offer "up to X" internet speeds, then they're selling the best case but probably delivering half that.

And while the pay purports to be in US dollars, it's in the form of a prepaid debit card with very low spending limits at non-approved vendors.

That is a scam. Severance should be paid as earned money, not as a debt.

Re: Verizon says to shed 10,400 jobs by mid next year

#177

Post by deadmetheny »

padseeker wrote: post #151
twblalock wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At no point was that ever insinuated. This is the parent comment, in its entirety: > I'm so glad we passed those corporate tax cuts that created all those jobs and helped provide for all those raises everyone got.... If that doesn't count as insinuation, then nothing does.

The prescribed solution to this problem was tax cuts. So if you still having large scale layoffs then it appears that maybe the SOLUTION is not quite solving the PROBLEM. Instead I need to engage in this stupidity. This is like someone getting cancer, and someone prescribes snake oil solution, and I'm saying the snake oil doesn't work. And instead some of you at the bottom of this thread are saying I'm blaming the ca…

The only stupidity you're engaging in is your own. It's very clear that's exactly what the parent comment said.

Re: Verizon says to shed 10,400 jobs by mid next year

#178

Post by ryandrake »

rayiner wrote: post #173
hayksaakian wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's "up to" 60 weeks like they offer "up to X" internet speeds, then they're selling the best case but probably delivering half that.

I get you're trying to make a joke, but it's a weird criticism of Verizon specifically. Every FiOS circuit I've had over the last 15 years, except for some growing pains with gigabit, has tested at 10% over its rated speed. Verizon also has particularly generous compensation: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/business/verizon-workers-... (union members make $130,000 on average in salary and benefits).

I just got back from Thanksgiving visiting my folks in rural PA where Verizon DSL is the only so-called high speed option, and it barely worked. I often could not even load the speed test pages. They were getting far less (10-20%?) than advertised. I thought the joke was brilliant and apt.

Re: Verizon says to shed 10,400 jobs by mid next year

#179

Post by tracker1 »

sonnyblarney wrote: post #111
toomuchtodo wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correlation does not imply causation. Can you provide evidence tax cuts stoked existing economic momentum? Or is the economy on fire despite these tax cuts? Stock buybacks [1] done with these tax cuts, enriching shareholders, does little to stoke economic demand or benefit the middle class [2]. More likely, cheap, loose credit is what has allowed the music to carry on. [1] https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/10/investing/s…

"Stock buybacks done with these tax cuts, enriching shareholders, does little to stoke economic demand." Stock buybacks don't 'enrich' anyone. Money that is owned by investors goes from 'inside the company' to 'outside' and it 's superficially a net neutral transaction. What those buy backs do do however is free up capital to be used in more intelligent ways than can be used by the single entity, in this case Verizon…

I think the trade war with China was inevitable. Not to say the U.S. doesn't or hasn't used state resources to bolster business, China does it to an extent that no other country has or could. Given the U.S. labor market and cost of said labor by comparison, it's about the only way to even attempt preserving that pool.

Yes it will make things more expensive, it will probably also cycle a faster upswing in demands for higher pay (also well overdue). But things will balance out in the end. My larger hope is to see some of the more overt corporatism recede quite a bit. Particularly IP terms and reform.

Re: Verizon says to shed 10,400 jobs by mid next year

#180

Post by Vraxx »

darawk wrote: post #171
padseeker wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is so simple and straight forward I question your ability to carry on this conversation. It is bloody obvious what I'm trying to say. The idea is that we have a problem, a stagnating economy, lack of jobs and stagnating wages. The prescribed solution to this problem was tax cuts. So if you still having large scale layoffs then it appears that maybe the SOLUTION is not quite solving the PROBLEM. Instead I ne…

> So if you still having large scale layoffs then it appears that maybe the SOLUTION is not quite solving the PROBLEM. And you were responding to this thread. Which means you were citing Verizon as evidence of your point. Which people the completely correctly compared to anti-global-warming people citing snow as evidence against global warming.

All of your responses are blatantly telling the person you're responding to what they were thinking instead of considering that perhaps there are multiple ways to interpret things. You told padseeker that they were insinuating something when at best you could guess that they were insinuating something. If you're actually interested in discussing things instead of telling people what they believe or what their intent was, then I suggest not using this rhetorical device because it stifles understanding and conversation, not encourages it.
Post reply on HN