Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Qwest union rejects contract

By Jeff Smith, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published September 30, 2008 at 6:13 p.m.
Updated September 30, 2008 at 11:56 p.m.

Text size  

More Tech & Telecom

More stories »

Members of Qwest Communications' largest union have rejected a contract that would have increased wages by 9.73 percent over three years but required health care premium-sharing for the first time.

"It wasn't close," Al Kogler, spokesman for District 7 of the Communications Workers of America, said Tuesday after ballots had been tallied. The CWA represents about 20,000 Qwest employees.

Kogler said he expected union employees to be at their jobs today, while company management and union leadership discuss possible plans to restart bargaining.

"What I've heard at this point is anecdotal but a lot of basic dignity and respect issues, and I think (how the retirees were treated) may be a big piece," Kogler said.

Post-1990 retirees along with union employees would have faced health care premiums for the first time. Pre-1991 retirees are protected from increased health care costs by a legal agreement.

Qwest spokesman Bob Toevs stressed the Denver telco "remains completely operational."

"I think it's fair to say that we're disappointed," Toevs said. "It's puzzling the members would reject the stability of good wages and benefits over the uncertainty of a prolonged contract dispute - especially given the economy."

The CWA already has authorized a strike as a last resort. Qwest said it has reactivated its strike-contingency plan.

Talks between the parties were contentious over health care and wages, but the two sides were able to reach a tentative agreement in mid-August, averting a possible strike before the Democratic National Convention.

The CWA has long resisted health care premium-sharing, but the issue was a top priority for Qwest, which, like other companies, has experienced rising health care costs.

Mimi Hull, president of the Association of U S West Retirees, expressed surprise the contract was rejected.

Comments

  • September 30, 2008

    8:48 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    Forced Union membership and forced dues enable labors' management to dictate the game they'll play.

    Too bad the credit markets are crushed and we have 4 anti Colorado measures on the ballot. This gives Qwest even more reasons to come back with higher premium numbers and more job cutting in Colorado.

    Way to go Unions! Remember Reagan and the aircraft controllers union?

  • September 30, 2008

    10:29 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    furiousgeorge writes:

    well ssqured, its obvious you don't have all the facts or understanding of the day to day operations at Qwest, which points out you are probably a Qwest manager. To your point concerning the economy, I do understand whats happening and its the greed of the people running these big businesses that has our country in a mess. Maybe more companies employees should use a union to help protect their jobs from going over seas or having all their benefits taken away so the CEOs can have their golden parachutes.

  • September 30, 2008

    10:54 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Qwestemployee writes:

    Of course, Qwest is going to make everything look on their end. The truth is that there are MANY other reasons for the contract being voted down. Anyone who knows a Qwest employee knows how they are treated...HORRIBLE!!! The employees are tired of being disrepected and threatened and it is about time the company understands we won't put up with it anymore!!!

  • October 1, 2008

    6:49 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    RetiredandMad writes:

    When Nachio was Lying and Stealing, the Qwest board would not listen to employees. The employees went to their friends that were (Both Management & Union) retirees. This organization approached the board about these issues. The retirees saved the company from going completely under. Now, after the company is making money and paying a dividend to stockholders,
    who cares about those who saved the company.
    This is not an issue for anti-unionists to jump on board. This is the rank-and-file union member rejecting Union Management's decision, and demanding what is fair. The existing contract is better than the new 2008 contract.

  • October 1, 2008

    7:32 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    WHATRIGHTS writes:

    ssquared, agreed....I know other businesses that have insurance plans are charging 10X's that amount for coverage.

    Qwestemployee, please enlighten us how Qwest working conditions are HORRIBLE?

  • October 1, 2008

    8:08 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    johntheoldguy writes:

    Qwestemployee has the victim mentality, thinks the company owes him or her a living - a "bellhead". I'm a Qwest employee, too and have been for 12 years, and think the company is a great place to work, even if I have to pay $75/mo for top-quality health care. $75/mo for family coverage is a bargain.
    Hope Qwestemployee quits, and goes to work someplace else. Then he or she will get a reality check!

  • October 1, 2008

    9:51 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:

    Can I have THAT job!! No payments toward medical and dental? Are you kidding me!!

    These union members are totally removed from reality.

  • October 1, 2008

    10:01 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    unionraised writes:

    SlouchingTowardBoulder; For those of you that can't see under the cover of the book...I feel sorry for you. You have tunnel vision. We pay for our medical and they want to triple the amount. Plus increase our deductible.

  • October 1, 2008

    11:48 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    springer writes:

    I too am a Qwest employee, with 30 years. The last 15 years as a Manager. How about you pay what I pay for Health Care? Over $300 a month! Yes I might make more per month but I bet you would be surprised at how little that difference would be. Especially since you are depending on if you get over time pay, which if you worked alot would most likely place you make more then me. You complain about perhaps paying as much as $75! Get real, go and try to find a 'job' where you only have to pay that amount! Good luck. You can't keep asking for and expecting that the company can keep giving, have you noticed what our stock price is? Yes I agree that the golden parachute issue stinks, but that is not going to change unless other companies come on board to change it. As for how you are treated, I agree, the front line works ARE not treated fairly but I don't think striking over that is the way to fix it. Getting better leadership at the top and on the board would be the way. So next time was are asked to vote on the board of directors, VOTE NO....

  • October 1, 2008

    4:32 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Bleaker writes:

    I'm a Qwest employee -- over 32 years. Every year we get a proxy vote for our stocks. There are always 2 boxes that I vote for every year. Of course, the board always recommends to vote against. Box 1--should stockholders have a say in executive and board compensation. Box 2-should employees have a say in executive and board compensation? Until these pass, Qwest executives will continue to get tons of money for less than stellar performance and their health care paid for. Just like we are still paying for Joseph P. Nacchio's healthcare. Of course, that was after his $25 million severance package.

  • October 1, 2008

    6:41 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    WHATRIGHTS writes:

    SlouchingTowardBoulder, that may very well be possible by the sounds of the article, you should apply.

    Unionraised...the article says union employees would have to pay $33/$75 so what you are paying $11/$25 now....your right...outrageous!

  • October 1, 2008

    7:28 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    qwestisgreatbut writes:

    People: right now, Qwest can force an employee to carry a pager all year and force him to work odd hours and have no family life. The union, so far, hasn't protected employees from the abuses that follow this. This is a major issue as anyone who has had to work 273 days straight can attest to.

    Qwest pays us well but isn't a perfect place to work, either. The union members didn't vote down the contract only because of healthcare. The forced overtime, increasing micro-management by the company, forced pager duty, and the fact that the wage increase didn't even cover the increased costs of living are the major issues.

    Also, this vote was as much as a vote against CWA as it was against the contract. CWA sold out its members by foregoing strike rights due to the Democratic National Convention (at which several CWA managers were delegates). Qwest took advantage of the weakened position. CWA has proven time and again that they are another corporate structure with their thumbs on the "little guy" yet they have a stranglehold on all wage negotiations for 20,000+ employees! So the terrible employees make exactly what the good employees make. This is, of course, a huge problem.

    So, as a union member, I just hope that this time around Qwest will fight fairly with all of their power for their members. I don't mind paying a bit more for health care but I'd like to be able to avoid being forced to work 273 days straight!

    qwest is great but...

  • October 1, 2008

    8:02 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    qweststicksittoyou writes:

    what some of you forget is that these employees took a paycut on the last contract so qwest could get out of the hole. now they want employees to pay for their healthcare and be happy that they still have a job. this increase won't cover the cost of a family of 5 and the gas to get to the doctor. let's not even go into the cost of the prescriptions. As far as I'm concerned it's a good thing that the ratification vote was a resounding no. As an ex-employee I will be on the picket lines supporting those who know how to fight!

  • October 1, 2008

    8:14 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    crzy1 writes:

    qwestisgreatbut thank you for hitting the nail on the head not only did the CWA fold with the DNC but also the RNC, why is it that the vote took place almost 2 months after the agreement. Because the CWA knew the contract was a joke and didn't want to disrupt either convention since they were getting paid from both sides. Hopefully now they will look out for the employees and not their pocketbooks.

  • October 1, 2008

    10:24 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    Unions and Politicians ... enough of a reason to Vote YES on 47, 49 and 54.

  • October 2, 2008

    6:35 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    useyourhead1 writes:

    What we have is a very strong union...of CEO's. How are they different that the unions of workers? They put each other on Boards of Directors, say they want what the other CEO's are getting, and the price just keeps going up and up....even though they scam the system, drive stock prices into the ground (but not before they have all the employees put their money into the company stock, think enron, qwest (Joe is still fighting the charges, while Qwest..the company he ruined pays his legal fees). Is it socialist, or moral, for the people in power to treat the people who work for them with some respect? I agree that really smart people, who do really good work, are innovative, etc. should be paid more than the workers. But what they are doing is taking more and more for themselves, while we're heading down the tube. No one that works for Qwest is rich on their saleries. They can support their families and go to the doctor and dentist, in exchange for hard work, dedication, and knowledge. Isn't that the way it should be, for everyone? I guess it comes down to how you view your fellow men/women. If you truly believe that most people are lazy, greedy, good for nothings then hating unions is understandable. You would find yourself saying, I'd work hard for THAT salary, and the bums should be fired. If you work for a union company and find yourself thinking that you are worth more than your co-workers because you are smarter/work harder and deserve more, you can apply to be management or work somewhere else. If you believe that most people want to go to work, give it their best, and appreciate the fact that they can live a decent life then why the hatred of unions. Lack of unions encourages dog eat dog mentality, lower standards of living for the masses, and abuses of the workers by the unchecked people at the top.

  • October 9, 2008

    11:03 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    qwestemployee2 writes:

    Why did this get voted no? Because our retirees would go from paying nothing to paying over $300 a month for health care, because qwest has an injunction against it workers from being able to strike. You heard that right. If you go on strike Qwest can legally fire you.. Our CEO got a 10 million dollar bonus, this would give me a .31 cent raise. Our techs have to have a pager on them 24-7. We also can’t forget Qwest has out sources close to 30,000 jobs over the last 2 years. While phone sales are down, broadband, direct tv, and cell phones are at their highest, and this is down with half the people.