AT&T to cut 10,000 jobs post-merger
Moderator: S2k Moderators
AT&T to cut 10,000 jobs post-merger
How can they do this? I thought the Ma Bell thing was broken up because of the monopoly situation...
NEW YORK (Reuters) - AT&T Inc. , which has agreed to buy BellSouth Corp. for $67 billion in stock, Monday said it expects to cut some 10,000 jobs between 2007 and 2009, once the acquisition has closed.
The deal, announced on Sunday, would bring ownership of Cingular Wireless, the No. 1 U.S. wireless telephone company, under one roof, which Wall Street analysts have said would streamline management and allow one parent company to enjoy all of the financial benefits.
A purchase of BellSouth would recombine the former AT&T (Research), also known as "Ma Bell," with four of the seven original "Baby Bell" regional telephone companies that were split off when AT&T was broken up by a court order in 1984.
At the time, AT&T controlled the long-distance telephone assets and its seven offspring offered regional and local telephone services.
Together, AT&T and BellSouth (Research) would have a national long-distance telephone and data network, residential customers stretching from Florida to California and business customers comprising more than half of the Fortune 1000, analysts have said.
The next largest telephone company is Verizon Communications.
Meanwhile, two consumer groups said Sunday that they'll urge U.S. antitrust authorities to block the deal, arguing it would lead to higher prices.
Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America said they would ask the Justice Department's antitrust division to reject the $67 billion deal that would extend AT&T's reach and solidify its position as the No 1. U.S. telephone company.
BellSouth stock jumped about 11 percent in morning trading while AT&T fell about 1 percent, both on the New York Stock Exchange.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - AT&T Inc. , which has agreed to buy BellSouth Corp. for $67 billion in stock, Monday said it expects to cut some 10,000 jobs between 2007 and 2009, once the acquisition has closed.
The deal, announced on Sunday, would bring ownership of Cingular Wireless, the No. 1 U.S. wireless telephone company, under one roof, which Wall Street analysts have said would streamline management and allow one parent company to enjoy all of the financial benefits.
A purchase of BellSouth would recombine the former AT&T (Research), also known as "Ma Bell," with four of the seven original "Baby Bell" regional telephone companies that were split off when AT&T was broken up by a court order in 1984.
At the time, AT&T controlled the long-distance telephone assets and its seven offspring offered regional and local telephone services.
Together, AT&T and BellSouth (Research) would have a national long-distance telephone and data network, residential customers stretching from Florida to California and business customers comprising more than half of the Fortune 1000, analysts have said.
The next largest telephone company is Verizon Communications.
Meanwhile, two consumer groups said Sunday that they'll urge U.S. antitrust authorities to block the deal, arguing it would lead to higher prices.
Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America said they would ask the Justice Department's antitrust division to reject the $67 billion deal that would extend AT&T's reach and solidify its position as the No 1. U.S. telephone company.
BellSouth stock jumped about 11 percent in morning trading while AT&T fell about 1 percent, both on the New York Stock Exchange.
0 likes
- george_r_1961
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 3171
- Age: 64
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2002 9:14 pm
- Location: Carbondale, Pennsylvania
- george_r_1961
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 3171
- Age: 64
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2002 9:14 pm
- Location: Carbondale, Pennsylvania
-
- Category 5
- Posts: 15941
- Age: 57
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
- Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)
I'm so confused.
I signed up for cell phone service with AT&T a few years ago. Then I got DSL service through SBC. But in the past year or so, my cell provider changed over to Cingular (didn't they buy AT&T?). Next thing I know, I go to pay my DSL bill...and the SBC logo has been replaced by the AT&T one. So, is it AT&T or not?
I'm afraid to go to my fridge for fear of what I might find there.
I signed up for cell phone service with AT&T a few years ago. Then I got DSL service through SBC. But in the past year or so, my cell provider changed over to Cingular (didn't they buy AT&T?). Next thing I know, I go to pay my DSL bill...and the SBC logo has been replaced by the AT&T one. So, is it AT&T or not?
I'm afraid to go to my fridge for fear of what I might find there.
0 likes
- fwbbreeze
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 896
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 10:09 pm
- Location: Fort Walton Beach, FL
from the article below:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060306/at_t_bel ... html?.v=13
I have a feeling the reduction of work force is a product of duplication of jobs and simple attrition. However, I have been thru a couple of these large corporate mergers and it is NEVER a smooth process for employees.
fwbbreeze
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060306/at_t_bel ... html?.v=13
San Antonio-based AT&T expects the acquisition announced Sunday to save it $2 billion annually at first, increasing to $3 billion a year by 2010. Slightly more than one third of the savings would come from reduced labor costs and consolidation of support functions and corporate staff, Lindner said. The combined company would be based in San Antonio.
I have a feeling the reduction of work force is a product of duplication of jobs and simple attrition. However, I have been thru a couple of these large corporate mergers and it is NEVER a smooth process for employees.
fwbbreeze
0 likes
-
- Tropical Low
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:20 am
- Location: Maryland
Actually its economics...when Judge Greene broke up the monopoly in the 80s there were few choices...ATT or MCI and MCI was a small company. Now you have many choices and all of them are cheaper and offer more services than Ma Bell did 25 years ago.
You now have cable phones over the Internet, Wireless services and the so called ride alongs like Cavalier etc.
ATT, Bell South and SBC (now ATT) all ineffecient since 2001 due to the collapse of the Internet craze.
There is more than enough fiber optic capacity, satellite capacity and job duplication to make this merger go very smoothly and make the resultant company very much more efficient than it would be going it alone.
Think about it...you have so many more choices in the last five years than anytime before.
You now have cable phones over the Internet, Wireless services and the so called ride alongs like Cavalier etc.
ATT, Bell South and SBC (now ATT) all ineffecient since 2001 due to the collapse of the Internet craze.
There is more than enough fiber optic capacity, satellite capacity and job duplication to make this merger go very smoothly and make the resultant company very much more efficient than it would be going it alone.
Think about it...you have so many more choices in the last five years than anytime before.
0 likes
Pondbuilder wrote:Actually its economics...when Judge Greene broke up the monopoly in the 80s there were few choices...ATT or MCI and MCI was a small company. Now you have many choices and all of them are cheaper and offer more services than Ma Bell did 25 years ago.
You now have cable phones over the Internet, Wireless services and the so called ride alongs like Cavalier etc.
ATT, Bell South and SBC (now ATT) all ineffecient since 2001 due to the collapse of the Internet craze.
There is more than enough fiber optic capacity, satellite capacity and job duplication to make this merger go very smoothly and make the resultant company very much more efficient than it would be going it alone.
Think about it...you have so many more choices in the last five years than anytime before.
But those "choices" are not giving me better prices. IMO, it is all about "gain" for them.
0 likes
- gtalum
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 4749
- Age: 49
- Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 3:48 pm
- Location: Bradenton, FL
- Contact:
Lindaloo wrote:But those "choices" are not giving me better prices. IMO, it is all about "gain" for them.
Have you looked into choices like Vonage? or phone throughg your cable company? These options are almost always much cheaper than the phone company's service.
0 likes
- gtalum
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 4749
- Age: 49
- Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 3:48 pm
- Location: Bradenton, FL
- Contact:
Lindaloo wrote:Oh awesome. I have cable internet.
Then I would definitely recommend that you look into Vonage. For $27 ($29 something after taxes) per month you get unlimited local and long distance, with pretty much every option that the phone company would charge you for included. You can get a 500 minute package for even less. These days you can even take your current number with you.

I truly enjoyed telling Verizon to take a hike!

0 likes
-
- Tropical Low
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 11:20 am
- Location: Maryland
But those "choices" are not giving me better prices. IMO, it is all about "gain" for the
Oh but they are...You used to pay a flat rate for phone service and in some (many) cases that gave you a set number of calls every month. Long distance was ridiculous...person to person calls out of state were in excess of 3 dollars a minute. Calls home or reverse the charges were much higher. Today for a flat rate you can talk as long as you like. With Internet services like Vonage you can call internationally and talk forever. Ever try calling internationally 10 years ago. Better have your thoughts organized get your message across and get off. Try calling the US from an international hotel...it was riduculous.
Now factor in inflation and we are paying a lot less for much more than prior to the breakup or even 5 years ago.
Oh but they are...You used to pay a flat rate for phone service and in some (many) cases that gave you a set number of calls every month. Long distance was ridiculous...person to person calls out of state were in excess of 3 dollars a minute. Calls home or reverse the charges were much higher. Today for a flat rate you can talk as long as you like. With Internet services like Vonage you can call internationally and talk forever. Ever try calling internationally 10 years ago. Better have your thoughts organized get your message across and get off. Try calling the US from an international hotel...it was riduculous.
Now factor in inflation and we are paying a lot less for much more than prior to the breakup or even 5 years ago.
0 likes
gtalum wrote:Lindaloo wrote:But those "choices" are not giving me better prices. IMO, it is all about "gain" for them.
Have you looked into choices like Vonage? or phone throughg your cable company? These options are almost always much cheaper than the phone company's service.
actually phone service through our cable company (Cox) is 30 more a month than our current service.
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests