AT&T Workers Seek Nearly A Billion Dollars In Overtime Pay Suits

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Workers Independent News

Submitted by Doug Cunningham

AT&T is facing two class action lawsuits that could cost the4 company as much as $1 billion. Jesse Russell reports:

Two class action lawsuits have been filed against AT&T by workers demanding nearly $1 billion in overtime. The telecommunication company has a seven-tier management structure where first level managers – the lowest on the pole – have allegedly been denied overtime even as they work more than 40 hours per week. According to the suit in some cases those managers worked upwards of 100 hours per week without overtime. The law firm representing the workers in the case says that according to federal and some state labor laws that in order to not pay overtime to managers responsibilities need to be made clear and in the case of AT&T the first-level managers have very limited supervisory roles.

Read more: http://www.laborradio.org/node/12594

---

This story is not copyrighted and may be shared. A link to WIN would be appreciated. No MSM on this.

[unhappycamper]

1. I retired from Verizon in 2002.

I was a second level manager who was expected to work 55 ~ 60 hour weeks.

[enlightenment]

8. I left AT&T in 1993, taking one of their buyouts

(The were offering them every year for awhile there). I was a first level supervisory manager doing the job of a second level, without the commiserate pay, and also working as a systems analyst in the same department. After working for a year, six and sometimes seven days a week for 12 to 14 hours a day - and only receiving overtime pay for 1/4 of the overtime I worked (I guess I should be happy I got any), I called it quits. Damn job almost killed me and I was young.

That said - I still cherish my one remaining Trimline, corded telephone. Clear, static free, comfortable to use . . . and until the cat knocked it off the counter last year and broke the ringer, it worked like it was brand-new.

[SharonAnn]

12. i found one at a garage sale for $1. Best sounding phone I have in the house.

[Selatius]

2. Often, companies will create out of whole cloth supervisory positions to avoid overtime pay.

Because managerial staff are generally excluded from certain protections afforded to hourly workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as the Wagner Act that formally recognized the right of workers to collectively bargain. A big thing they don't enjoy is a mandate that they get overtime pay if they work beyond 40 hours.

[Gman]

3. 1st level managers at ATT do not have the ability to hire, fire or promote

therefore they do not meet the legal definition of a manager. They legally should be allowed to join the union and receive overtime. And that's the line managers. When you get to the administrative positions, up to 2nd level is not a manager.

[TwixVoy]

11. Can you cite that?

I have never heard of a "legal definition" of a manager being required to be able to hire, fire, or promote by their own whim. Is this a federal law, state law, what?

EVERY corporation I have ever worked for required either Human Resources to make the final decision, or required the next level of management to also agree. Therefore by your "legal definition" at those companies no one word be a "legal" manager other than the HR managers.

Every level of management at any company I have worked for has always had the ability to make recommendations to hire, fire, promote, but I never saw a company give ANYONE (below executive level anyway) sole discretion in the matter. That doesn't mean everyone below executive level is not a "legal manager". No company would be that stupid to not have some checks and balances. Otherwise you might have some jack ass decide to fire anyone who wasn't white and the next thing you know the company is out of business.

I am calling BS.

[Gman]

14. It's in the National Labor Relations Act

what you describe as HR or a higher level needing to give the final say also makes the case that 1st level managers at ATT or elsewhere are not legal managers and eligible for union membership.

Congress attempted to achieve this distinction through the definition of
"supervisor." The Act defines "supervisor" in 5 2(1 I), which provides:
The term "supervisor" means any individual having authority, in the
interest of the employer, to hire, t~ansfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote,
discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or responsibly
direct them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively to recommend
such action, if an connection with the foregoing the exercise of such
authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use
of independent judgment.
-
29 U.S.C. 5 152(11). Accordingly, employees are statutory supervisors if: (1) they hold
the authority to engage in any 1 of the 12 listed supervisory functions; (2) their "exercise
of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of
independent judgment;" and (3) their authority is held "in the interest of the employer."
See Kentucky River, 532 U.S. at 712-13 (citing NLRB v. Health Care & Retirement
-
Corn. of America, 51 1 U.S. 571 (1994)

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:52w1_MScAD0J:www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/about/foia/Oakwood%2520KY%2520River/7-RC-22141%2520%28Brief%25204%29.pdf+national+labor+relations+act+hire+fire+promote&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

This is from a amicus curiae brief but it cites the pertinent parts of the NLRA. BS??

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. AT&T is vile, for so many reasons.

How many hear support AT&T by buying their products, I wonder?

[dysfunctional press]

5. the only ones that hear support would be those that call them, i would imagine...

:shrug:

[toopers]

6. I do -- remember, the vile company employs about 300K . . .

most of them in the US.

[dixiegrrrrl]

7. and the military, the contractors, the CIA employ a lot of people.

Does not make them less vile.
We still have small discretion of not paying the Bog Banks ( BOA, Citi, etc) who rip us off,
and the big Tele companies who illegally spy on us.
IMHO, anyhow.

[Omaha Steve]

9. We have an AT&T cell phone

The CWA asks union members to use AT&T as the first choice in cell phones. Marta was CWA for 18 years. No shame here for us.

On the other hand, these low level managers got the shaft. I hope they win. And should AT&T continue to fight with it's union when it made 12 billion, we don't have a contract and can bolt at any time.

OS

[WriteDown]

10. Be careful. You're getting into iPhone territory there...

:)

[Hestia]

13. Since DH works for AT&T, makes a wonderful salary, is in a position that will

not, well virtually not, be eliminated, I do. In hindsight, FCC should not have allowed the buyout of ATT by Southwestern Bell, nor the merger with BellSouth. The individual Bell's were wonderful to work for and management came up through the union ranks. Now they are too big, with a one size fits all employee mandates, trying to water down the CWA, which is a very strong union.

[Gman]

16. I proudly support AT&T and I proudly buy their products

because when I do I support the Communications Workers of America. AT&T is the biggest unit represented by CWA.

[Touchdown]

18. I do. I work for them. They pay well, and are a union company.

I'm able to eat and pay my bills because of this job. Am I wrong to work there? AT&T has a dark side, but what company doesn't?

BTW: Your welcome you could post a message on the internet. Your friendly network technician who keeps AT&T's part of the network running.:hi:

[superconnected]

15. Someday this will happen with Microsoft, and I can't wait.

[Vidar]

17. Couldn't happen to a nicer company.