AT&T The major telephone companie fired 20+ people today, and more are going to be let go tomorrow. Employees said that around 3 to 3:30 in the afternoon managers of the AT&T office in West Oklahoma City started walking employees out of the office citing what they called "Code of Business Conduct Violation". Local employees say the companie is cherry picking the most senior employees. Some employees believe that it is part of AT&T's recent efforts to reduce cost, the most senior employees were let go today who all make top pay at the companie.

They'd have to be utterly insane to use something like "Code of Business Conduct Violation" in an attempt to cut costs. To be able to show a violation of the code, they'd need to have pretty good evidence of specific misdeeds should there be a lawsuit, which there certainly would be if these were trumped up charges. There are a ton of different ways to fire employees that don't involve charges of wrongdoing. I used to practice employment law and I can't imagine they'd do something on this scale without serious thought. I'm interested in seeing where this story leads.

That is pretty rich. If they're going to pink slip people, they should pink slip them, not trump up charges.

AT&T is a creepy company. I'm still appalled that they would give up their customer's privacy so readily -- without warrants -- to Bush and Co.

They'd have to be utterly insane to use something like "Code of Business Conduct Violation" in an attempt to cut costs. To be able to show a violation of the code, they'd need to have pretty good evidence of specific misdeeds should there be a lawsuit, which there certainly would be if these were trumped up charges. There are a ton of different ways to fire employees that don't involve charges of wrongdoing. I used to practice employment law and I can't imagine they'd do something on this scale without serious thought. I'm interested in seeing where this story leads.


Well this is obviously is not official from the company itself, but one can only ask themselves when the people let go were all at top pay, which takes 2 years at minimum. They have not let new people who are still in the middle or bottom pay, one can only assume with a company who is known for this type of practice that they would rather get rid of senior employess as opposed to newer employees.

It's okay.

They will have new jobs waiting for them at the new call center.

East Coast,

Do those laws apply in a "no fault" (or is it "'no cause") state? As I understand it, in the state of OK, one can basically be fired from a private company for just about anything without real justification and not have to deal with any legal ramifications.

Can you clarify?

Troll with rumor.

East Coast,

Do those laws apply in a "no fault" (or is it "'no cause") state? As I understand it, in the state of OK, one can basically be fired from a private company for just about anything without real justification and not have to deal with any legal ramifications.

Can you clarify?

That's basically any state where the job isn't union and there's no employment contract.

Troll with rumor.

strong post.

OKlahoma is a right to work state so I believe you can fire and only be out of unemployement.

Fritter Girl - Oklahoma is a right to work state but that goes out the window, for all practical purposes, if the employer allegedly violates federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of being in a protected class (age, race, gender, ethnic origin, pregnant, I may have missed one) or retaliation for exercising their rights to nondiscrimination in the workplace. If the company has targeted senior workers, it begs for a lawsuit in which, once the presumption is raised, the company would have to show it did not take the action based on a discriminatory or retaliatory motive.

Something interesting that someone posted was that about getting senior pay in two years. When I read the most "senior employees" in the original post, I thought "older" employees. However, if they are predominately under age 40, or a lot of the fired group is under age forty, there probably won't be much there, from a legal standpoint. Forty years is the age in which age discrimination becomes a factor (sad as that sounds to someone old like me). If you fire even half and half of employees (some in a protected class but the rest not) I think you can probably overcome the presumption that the company was targeting aged workers. That is just my opinion, of course. Age is protected - seniority, generally, is not. Particularly seniority that is achievable is such a short period of time.

There could possibly be some protections in place for tortious loss of retirement benefits and so forth but I wouldn't know that they'd be. If the worker is not in a protected class, he or she is likely to be out of luck in a right to work state like Oklahoma. If they were fired "for cause," they may not even be entitled to unemployment but I have seen that treated in such an arbitrary manner that I wouldn't even make a guess as to whether they would or wouldn't get benefits. I doubt the defense that "everyone was doing it," would evoke a very sympathetic response. Could be wrong, though. The unemployment could swat the company for, essentially, not firing everyone for rule breaking.

I wish them luck with new employment, I honestly do. However, personally, I am happy that Oklahoma is a right to work state. It brings in business that is not coming in, otherwise. When workers are ready to go t*t to grave with a given employer, that is one thing. Our culture has not encouraged loyalty from either side in the past 25 years. I'm betting few, if any, of those employees would stay with ATT out of loyalty if something else better came along. Any training costs put in place by the company would just be lost. It goes both ways. Back in the day of pensions, there was a ton more loyalty because it made more sense, financially. A lot of young people tend to not realize that retirement is looming and don't make decisions that take that into account when they switch jobs. I predict a trainwreck in a couple of decades on this issue. I stress out my kids on a regular basis about saving, saving, saving for retirement. The government will not have the funds to keep them living in the style in which they would like. Check out Katrina. Seriously, look how a lot of those poor people were living (BEFORE Katrina). That is the standard of living on government assistance. It ain't no roll in the hay. It is meager. Retirees would be living at about the same level, or less, if they don't inherit a bundle or save on their own.

As for being a union shop - even if this wasn't a right to work state, when you can train someone in a matter of weeks, it is going to be hard to get that going. There are too many people out there with no real unique skills who are willing to step up and replace a worker who is fired. My suggestion is for folks to get a decent education and/or learn a trade, work like hell, and don't give their employer a reason to fire them. That is no guarantee it won't happen but it is the best protection they've got. Just being practical - not preaching.

AT&T is represented by the Communication Workers of America, and while Oklahoma is a Right To Work state, workers do have a right to file grievences and ask for due process in an effort to get a fair hearing and possibly their jobs back.

AT&T The major telephone companie fired 20+ people today, and more are going to be let go tomorrow. Employees said that around 3 to 3:30 in the afternoon managers of the AT&T office in West Oklahoma City started walking employees out of the office citing what they called "Code of Business Conduct Violation". Local employees say the companie is cherry picking the most senior employees. Some employees believe that it is part of AT&T's recent efforts to reduce cost, the most senior employees were let go today who all make top pay at the companie.

Company.

AT&T is represented by the Communication Workers of America, and while Oklahoma is a Right To Work state, workers do have a right to file grievences and ask for due process in an effort to get a fair hearing and possibly their jobs back.

That's right, Intrepid. And the really sad part about the Right-To-Work scam is that CWA must represent all of the workers at AT&T, offer the same benefits, etc. to members and non-members alike. Dues-paying members get no better deal than anybody else. It used to be called "freeloading" - now it's led to the decline of labor membership and basically making organized labor in RTW states nothing more than a company-union that must do as the company says. There is no real recourse anymore.

The decline of the American organized labor movement has led to corporate domination, a loss of the balance of power between workers and owners and, quite frankly, nothing short of the rapid decline of the middle class in this country.

Used to be that kids, primarily sons, could follow in their dad's footsteps as a proud union member and provide for their families in their hometowns. These days, they have to show a lot more creativity and initiative. Nothing is handed to them and that has been a real shock for a lot of families who considered the job as an entitlement with pension and health benefits. The decline of the union has probably contributed to the health care problem in this country since health benefits were considered a part of the deal.

A lot of people who come from union families weren't being taught the importance of education since in many of those families, it wasn't needed to reach middle class status. Hopefully, the news is out and the next generation will be better equiped to deal with the new reality of the economic culture. I have no idea how Americans expect to compete with third world labor and still receive middle class wages AND benefits. Cheaper goods on the market allow the rest of us to have a much higher standard of living than we would have, otherwise, but it is hard on union families, I'll admit.

I am glad to see that a lot of unions are being more open to females but even when my kids were growing up (not THAT long ago), there was an unwritten rule that women weren't allowed to apprentice in my husband's line of work. Used to make me furious. Still makes me furious.

When I was a member of the union (really no choice in my field because where I worked they would make your life hell if you weren't a member), the union took my dues and adopted political positions that had absolutely nothing to do with my job and that I would not support in a million years. Really put a bad taste in my mouth because it was so heavy handed. I am not a member of the union now due to my work but I wouldn't, anyway, since I found them to be heavy handed. The stewarts seemed to primarily be on power trips. Just my experience.

That's right, Intrepid. And the really sad part about the Right-To-Work scam is that CWA must represent all of the workers at AT&T, offer the same benefits, etc. to members and non-members alike. Dues-paying members get no better deal than anybody else. It used to be called "freeloading" - now it's led to the decline of labor membership and basically making organized labor in RTW states nothing more than a company-union that must do as the company says. There is no real recourse anymore.

The decline of the American organized labor movement has led to corporate domination, a loss of the balance of power between workers and owners and, quite frankly, nothing short of the rapid decline of the middle class in this country.


You are preaching to the choir my friend. I used to be a steward at Cingular, now AT&T Mobility, and actually led the fight to bring the union to our call center. One of the things we argued over and over again with potential members was the "freeloading" aspect of RtW. It was a frustrating process.

I am good friends with the Exec VP of the CWA Local here in OKC, but I haven't had the opportunity to ask her about the situation.

Any employer that has nine or more employees is bound to the entire slew of federal Title 13 and other equality and fairness-type doctrines. Union or not, Oklahoma or not, there are certain federal laws that large companies must comply with.

It would be odd to use a company policy violation as a means of termination if the company didn't have proof of this. God help them if any of the terminations involved someone over 40, someone with a disability, a minority, etc. and they have no evidence of wrong-doing.

Any employer that has nine or more employees is bound to the entire slew of federal Title 13 and other equality and fairness-type doctrines. Union or not, Oklahoma or not, there are certain federal laws that large companies must comply with.

It would be odd to use a company policy violation as a means of termination if the company didn't have proof of this. God help them if any of the terminations involved someone over 40, someone with a disability, a minority, etc. and they have no evidence of wrong-doing.


The company must also follow guidelines set forth within in the Union contract. If they breached those guidelines, then that can be a basis for a grievance against the company.

I'm a female. When I started working at age 16 many years ago, I became a member of the UFCW union in California. I had great benefits, great health care, 100% health, dental, vision, pension, retirement, 401K and better than average wages compared to all the non union employees I knew..

My husband was in an Union as well. He earned a great income and also had great benefits. We never worried about being fired or laid off.

He and I both now have interest earning accrued pensions and retirement plans that will see us through many 'golden' years to come.

I know some people hold unions in disdain and feel that union workers are not educated ( not correct, btw) but many workers receive protection and benefits, which are much needed and appreciated, especially while working through college.

Moving to OK, with it's pathetic average wages and high cost of health care, forced us to start our own company and become self employed to even come close to making the incomes we were accustomed to.

So, now, we're on the the other end.. yes, this right to work state has its benefits .. for an employer.

I'm a female. When I started working at age 16 many years ago, I became a member of the UFCW union in California. I had great benefits, great health care, 100% health, dental, vision, pension, retirement, 401K and better than average wages compared to all the non union employees I knew..

My husband was in an Union as well. He earned a great income and also had great benefits. We never worried about being fired or laid off.

He and I both now have interest earning accrued pensions and retirement plans that will see us through many 'golden' years to come.

I know some people hold unions in disdain and feel that union workers are not educated ( not correct, btw) but many workers receive protection and benefits, which are much needed and appreciated, especially while working through college.

Moving to OK, with it's pathetic average wages and high cost of health care, forced us to start our own company and become self employed to even come close to making the incomes we were accustomed to.

So, now, we're on the the other end.. yes, this right to work state has its benefits .. for an employer.

My dad was a union organizer for the UFCW here in Oklahoma for over 30 years. =)

I didn't mean to suggest that all union workers don't need higher education. I merely meant that many unionized fields don't require it. The point is not that union members are uneducated but that for many people, they simply expected to follow in their parent's (generally their dad's) footsteps right out of highschool.

My dad was raised in the barrios of San Antonio. He had his own business for decades and worked night and day to get it off the ground. He ended up with about 50 employees when it was a going concern. Most of his clients were connected to the oil industry and when the oil boom went bust he lost it all. He also lost his own health worrying over how he was going to keep health benefits for his workers - literally, the man had a heart attack and was utterly distraught. Keeping their health benefits became the most important thing in his life and it just about destroyed him when he lost the business. He completely obscessed over it. When he died he was next to penniless but he left no bills.

I know that small businesses aren't really the target for the Union distain but when I see what he did with his life, how hard he worked, the risks he took, the sacrifices he made and how much he cared about his employees, I have less sympathy for people who think their employer owes them a job and benefits. A lot of people think they are entitled to a high standard of living just because they live in the good old USA. And then trash the country, to boot. To get those companies, someone had to shed blood to build them, in many cases. I applaud people who are willing to start their own businesses to create jobs for others.

I think people that work hard for 40 hours a week should be able to also have a family.

Places like ATT are no good for that.. but is there any place that is good for that?

I'd love to only work 40 hours a week ... Gone are the days when you can raise a family on one income unless you are nearly upper middle class. Shame, really. Unless we cut way back as a culture, I don't see those days coming back. Most people want a lot of things we considered optional when I was raising my kids. Hard to tell your kids "no" when their friends are going to movies, Disneyworld, have newish cars, larger houses, expensive clothes, etc., and that doesn't even take into account the costs of educating them. I am glad I'm not raising kids, these days. I raised mine in the era where the transition was occuring between having one breadwinner support a family to many households having both parents work. Even then, it was getting more difficult to keep up.

Well this is obviously is not official from the company itself, but one can only ask themselves when the people let go were all at top pay, which takes 2 years at minimum. They have not let new people who are still in the middle or bottom pay, one can only assume with a company who is known for this type of practice that they would rather get rid of senior employess as opposed to newer employees.

Do you have anything at all to back up your assertions?

luckyslevin, were these layoffs at the AT&T call center I'm assuming? I think most of the AT&T senior level management jobs are downtown OKC.

This whole thread smacks of troll. Low-level poster making assertions not backed up by anything. Can anyone even confirm these firings happened, much less for the evil reasons slevin stated?

You want real layoffs- Paycom laid off approx. 50 people last week.

I was wondering if more workers were laid off. The initial post said they were going to lay off more the next day but I haven't seen anything.

Right to Work has brought us no jobs. The only good argument for it was that our neighbor states had it.

We won't be big time until we have a more educated workforce, better quality of life (which we're working on!), and better infrastructure.

Actually, OKC is pretty well positioned toward achieving this. The rest of the state is struggling.

This whole thread smacks of troll. Low-level poster making assertions not backed up by anything. Can anyone even confirm these firings happened, much less for the evil reasons slevin stated?

You want real layoffs- Paycom laid off approx. 50 people last week.

I was an HR manager at AT&T (then Southwestern Bell) in the 90's. I can tell you that if it were non-management people that were fired, all the background work would have been done to make sure that these employees did indeed do what they were fired for. The original poster of this thread indicated it was due to a violation of the Code of Business Conduct....and if this is true, it would have been a very serious offense for 20+ people to get fired. Non-management employees are covered by a Union contract and you can bet the union will be all over it if these people were fired unjustly. Unless things have changed since I was there, the HR managers should be making sure disciplinary cases are handled fairly. I'll try to see if I can find out if this story is true or not from my former AT&T contacts.

Another note....I also think it is interesting that the original poster has not shared how he knows or heard about this. I'm not putting much validity to it until I find out from a more reliable source.

So I guess this was just rumor...?

Another note....I also think it is interesting that the original poster has not shared how he knows or heard about this. I'm not putting much validity to it until I find out from a more reliable source.

here, here, especially since it was from a new poster.:congrats:

I spoke with my contact with CWA yesterday evening, and they said that at that time, no word had come down of any such firings.

You'd think that many firings (with more coming, according to the poster) for an offense that serious, would be have been big-time news to the people in the know. Especially if it is just a sneaky way to get after senior employees.

Whattayawannabet some good old boy got canned for being drunk on the job and carrying on with the cleaning lady - in full view of the security camera - but rather than tell the old lady the truth, made up a whopper that turned into this.

It could happen.

and carrying on with the cleaning lady - in full view of the security camera

go on......

You'd think that many firings (with more coming, according to the poster) for an offense that serious, would be have been big-time news to the people in the know. Especially if it is just a sneaky way to get after senior employees.

Whattayawannabet some good old boy got canned for being drunk on the job and carrying on with the cleaning lady - in full view of the security camera - but rather than tell the old lady the truth, made up a whopper that turned into this.

It could happen.


Think what you wish folks. If I could delete this thread I would, I would hate for you folks to speculate on me being a troll. There where about 10 people let go after it was all said and done. Not as many as I first posted.

The issue for discussion should be how large companies just fire large numbers of people without warning. No one was told this "activity" was a violation. No company handbook, no written rules, nothing in the contract book about this. So with that being said. It just alllows companies to in a sense make up as they go things they believe are wrong.

It is very true about unions not having any power in todays world as somone posted earlier, they essentially just follow the companies rules. Honestly they don't give a lot of pushback.


End thread. (I would just hate to be called a troll)

No offense, but having practiced employment law, I find it completely unimaginable that the employees weren't given a handbook or directed to where one is online. Generally, in orientation, employees have to initial or otherwise indicate they have been given the rules, including reading what is in the handbook. Maybe their HR people aren't on the ball but this is "New Employee 101" I honestly can't imagine a large company like ATT not having a standardized orientation program that has been crafted and recrafted by attorneys who are making sure they they don't have precisely the problem that you are describing- i.e., the employee just didn't know. That is the easiest problem in the world to avoid just by having them initial that they read the rules. Did they read the rules? If not, why not? If they were supposed to read the rules, claimed they did, how silly to then claim they didn't know. How embarassing. But that didn't happen?

In your first post, you said they were doing something that everyone else did and they were picked on because they were more senior employees (cherry picking). Today, you are making the argument that they didn't even know they were doing anything wrong. I just have a hard time seeing it. Especially when they were allgedly fired for something relatively serious. The fact that others (when it was all said and done) weren't fired, makes me wonder those employees got a lesser discipline - sort of a progressive discipline situation the way most large companies and the government do.

Well, we will probably never know.

I just had another conversation with the Exec VP of the CWA here in OKC, and to the best of their knowledge, no union represented employee of AT&T has been fired, and if they have, they have not contacted the local for grievance purposes.

They added that AT&T has officially taken over the Dobson Communications call center, and that it's entirely possible that some in mgmt could have been let go.

And finally, they added, IF these people were fired, and they were union represented, AND they were fired something that is not in any company employee handbook, then those people need to contact their union representatives ASAP.

It just seems like there is a lot of missing information here.

I agree with East Coast Okie and Intrepid....you can bet that whatever AT&T did in this case, they looked at all angles before they fired these employees (if it indeed happened). All employees were required to review the Code of Business Conduct every year and sign a form that they understood and would comply with the "rules". This would include policies of Violence in the Workplace, Sexual Harrassment, Conflict of Interest, etc. (And I'm sure they still have the 3-step disciplinary process for other work-related issues which gives employees plenty of chances to correct the problem before they are fired.)

When I was an HR manager we conducted a "day in court" (with Union reps present) with the employee to make sure that they understood what was going on and to give the employee an opportunity to tell us why he/she thinks they should not be fired. And you could bet if the dismissal was for a Code of Business Conduct violation that our Legal department had reviewed the case before anything was done.

During my whole career at SWBT, SBC, AT&T I can honestly say I don't think that any employee in my department was terminated unjustly. It took at lot of time and approvals up the line before employees were actually fired.

luckyslevin---give us some real facts: what exact work location did this happen? What were the employees told when they were fired? Were they management or non-management employees? Did you hear this directly from one of the employees who was fired?

well at the company i use to work for, you where lucky to get a hand book, and they did treat people unfair, and change the rules daily, so you never know if what this poster is saying might be true, some companies are just bad and unethical.

well at the company i use to work for, you where lucky to get a hand book, and they did treat people unfair, and change the rules daily, so you never know if what this poster is saying might be true, some companies are just bad and unethical.

I'm sure you're right about some other companies, but the original poster was talking about AT&T and I was a Senior Human Resource manager there before I retired. I have given my opinions on my experiences while I was there. I don't think the company has changed too much in the way it handles personnel issues, especially with the CWA looking over management's shoulders and also the Legal department reviewing separation proposals that involve conduct issues.

I admit I could be wrong, that's why I've asked the poster to give us some real facts about this before I will believe it really happened.