Home - , , - CWA: T-Mobile-Sprint Merger Could Result to Loss of 28,000 Jobs

CWA: T-Mobile-Sprint Merger Could Result to Loss of 28,000 Jobs

tmobile-sprint-merger-cwa-union
Back in April, T-Mobile and Sprint reached an agreement over a possible merger between the two companies. Despite their decision, the merger still needs approved by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and other regulators. And in order to make a fair decision, the two agencies have opened their doors to listening to the opinion of other parties involved; especially how the merger would affect the MVNOs that purchase network access from the networks of T-Mobile and Sprint.

Ever since the announcement was made, there have been several published letters penned by CEOs showing their support and concern against the merger. Last week, several MVNOs admitted that T-Mobile has requested them to show their support for the merger; a request that many still do not know whether they should submit a comment to the FCC. And with the FCC's August 27 deadline, there were requests to stop the clock or extend the review period on the merger. The FCC, however, has declined the petition and has pushed through with its deadline for Petitions to Deny. True enough, the FCC has received feedback from those who oppose the T-Mobile-Sprint merger.

On Monday, a number of groups filed a joint petition urging the FCC to junk the proposed merger between T-Mobile and Sprint. Among those who signed the request include Dish Network, Altice, C Spire, Frontier, Windstream, Consumer's Union, Common Cause and Public Knowledge, and many others. The groups expressed that the merger would lead to the removal of one aggressive competitor. At the same time, they showed concern on how this would result to higher prices.

The Communications Workers of America (CWA) has also expressed its concern over the merger, especially with over 28,000 jobs it predicts will be lost. The CWA, a union representing 700,000 workers, has conducted an analysis using location data for all retail locations included in the proposed merger. Using this information, the CWA found out that the merger will eliminate around 24,000 jobs due to an overlap in retail stores on both postpaid and prepaid aspects of the two companies. The merger could also eliminate 4,500 positions in its headquarters due to duplicate functions.

Echoing the sentiments of the other opposing groups, the CWA expressed its concern on how the merger would eliminate the rivalry between T-Mobile and Sprint. The CWA shared that the two carriers were unable to prove that they will be capable of competing by themselves, especially since the merger will lead to a viable working solution for the two companies for improving their networks and the roll out of 5G connectivity.

With regards to national security, the CWA echoed the same concerns since the proposed merger will be using Huawei and ZTE manufactured equipment. Even though Sprint made an agreement with SoftBank that it will remove Huawei equipment from its network in 2013, there has been no change. The CWA pointed out that both Sprint and Boost Mobile continue to use equipment by Huawei and even sell ZTE devices.

In its response, T-Mobile CEO John Legere discussed how the merger will be beneficial for everyone. For one thing, the CEO admitted that the merger would eliminate 8,000 retail jobs and 3,200 full-time jobs. Even with this admission, Legere promised that the merger "will be job positive by day one." The CEO claimed there will be 10,000 jobs created in new businesses brought about by the merger.

Sprint CEO Marcelo Claure joined in on defending the merger by touching base on the topic of 5G deplooyment. According to the CEO, Sprint's 5G network will be limited to dense urban areas without T-Mobile's hand. Neville Ray, T-Mobile's CTO, shares that the combination of spectrum resources of the two will be able to have "the breadth and depth to create the first nationwide 5G network."

Despite the points made by the opposition, there are others that are hoping regulators will approve the T-Mobile-Sprint merger. Among these include rural wireless operator Viaero, Libertarian TechFreedom, the Free State Foundation, and former government officials.


You can read the full FCC filing of the CWA here.



Source: FierceWireless, TmoNews

Tags: , ,

11 comments:

Comment Page :
  1. It's gonna keep on gaining momentum kicking and screaming. I personally think that the ONLY thing that can save a manegerial DISASTER like Sprint is a merger but it really does feel like nobody listens to the little guy in DC anymore.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would you want to save Sprint(your words:"a manegerial DISASTER") through allowing a merger? If they can't make it, simply let them file for bankruptcy. The purpose of the government antitrust regulators is not to protect the investor class or jobs. We need to let market forces price this type of risk accordingly. Let others (cable companies... etc...) bid on the bankrupt assets. The radio frequencies don't disappear if Sprint goes bankrupt.

      Delete
    2. I'd hardly call a giant League of Acronyms, a cabal of suspiciously unified interest among presumably varied personalities and mission statements, the "little guy."

      T-mobile and Sprint have been the REAL underdogs for the past few years, as they're the ones who've been fighting tooth and nail against established interests in order to do exactly the same thing that Verizon and AT&T did to get as big as THEY currently are.

      If Verizon can eat AOL, AT&T can bump uglies with Time Warner, and Disney can waltz around with ABC on one arm and FOX on the other, and literally nobody mentions any of those companies having to divest any of THEIR assets, it's no wonder people have stopped listening to anti-merger propaganda from giant, thoroughly merged conglomerates that only have as much influence as they do because of their own mergers.

      The way I see it, we either have to set a hard cap on the economic size of all businesses (both foreign and domestic) that can operate in this country, or just stop pretending to care.

      But if no other corporate fatties have to slim down or go on a diet, T-mobile and Sprint sure as hell shouldn't be the only one at the table that's forced to subsist entirely on kale flakes while Verizon and AT&T get to continue gorging themselves on the big ol' merger cake.

      Delete
  2. If most of the jobs lost are union jobs (meaning workers forced to pay political campaign contributions), then this is a very good thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Congress just needs to ban political contributions and lobbying by large organizations (such as unions, corporations, PACs, and lobbying/"government relations" firms).

      Problem solved, at least until the union bosses just start pocketing the dues themselves, at which point members should be allowed to secede from paying dues without sacrificing their union rights and protections.

      There's still the problem of public sector unions, though, which can easily be solved by giving Americans the same right to opt out of tax dues.

      Delete
    2. I have no problem with people choosing to make campaign contributions. But the problem with unions is that they force people to pay campaign contributions against their will and interestint a condition of employment.

      Delete
    3. You guys ever read other news? The SCOTUS just banned forced union dues problem for non-union members. Thanks to the new court! Now the affected unions have to pay refunds!

      Delete
    4. The SCOTUS ruling that you mentioned only covers government employees. Private-sector employees are still getting forced to join.

      Delete
  3. According to the Wall Street analysts at Macquarie Research, the odds are improving for a merger between Sprint and T-Mobile. Specifically, the analysts pointed to a relative lack of opposition to the transaction among some of the biggest names in telecom, including Comcast and Verizon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Verizon is either arrogant af, tired of resting on its laurels, or just hoping T-mobile will be the new top dog so they can finally kick rural America to the curb.

      Comcast just wants a good alternative to Verizon and AT&T, whose affordable device selections are sorely lacking.

      Delete
    2. What do you mean by "sorely lacking"? People are buying (in massive amounts) the cell phone offerings at Verizon and AT&T. Most people that I see that are making only a little bit above minimum wage or sporting the latest iPhones or Samsung's. If they aren't affordable, how come so many people actually CAN afford them?

      I reserve the term "unaffordable" for items that cost so much that hardly anyone buys them. If you think the BEST SELLING ITEMS aren't affordable, then the word "affordable" has lost all meaning.

      Delete
Comment Page :


All comments must be approved before they will appear. The following types of comments will not be approved: off topic comments, insults or personal attacks directed at other commenters, bigotry, hate, sexism and profanity.