Posted on 02/02/2009 10:26:29 AM PST by cc2k
<snip>
AT&T said last month that it would pare its Connecticut workforce, which totals about 6,800, by 400 jobs and transfer another 60 jobs to Michigan. A day after the news broke, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, flanked by union leaders, implored state regulators to block the cuts with the force of law while the state investigates the impact on customer service.
<snip>
AT&T argues that blocking its plans is in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution's commerce clause, which gives the power to regulate interstate and international commerce only to Congress.
<snip>
"All of a sudden, they're going to take a big, strong company, and they're going to squeeze it dry," said Jeff Kagan, an independent telecom analyst based in Atlanta. "If every state tried to exercise the same control, this company would be doomed. It wouldn't have any control over its future or any control over being competitive."
(Excerpt) Read more at courant.com ...
Unfortunately, while there was some satire in that piece, there was also some truth to it from the article from the Courant.
I wonder if this is where Biden's Middle Class Task Force will go?
If they were successful and I ran AT&T, I would just shut down all service in that State.
Blumenthal is just trying to compensate for his, um, tiny ‘manhood’ by acting like a bully...
AT&T better not count on protection from the Constitution. That document started to become irrelevant with Lincoln.
Guess he didn’t read Ayn Rand.
A union calling in one of it’s election day markers.
Point taken...but AT/T forgot that states can regulate intra-state commerce...which courts uphold all the time
States can regulate companies like utilities...and regulate those whose corporate HQ are out of state, and bring in power, resources from out of state, etc...so AT/T doesnt have much of a leg to stand on
I dont know how, though, the state of CT can prevent the job cuts....at least AT/T is moving jobs to other states (boy can Michigan use some jobs). Probably the best recourse a state could take is to make out-sourcing employers pay full-salary unemployment instead of the usual state-mandated amounts.
Very similiar to the Nazi idea of rent controls while property owners were forced to pay property taxes on property waaayyyy higher than the rent being charged.
Brilliant move gubmint.
Not a bad idea. At least make companies who outsource or are laying off in order to hire bodies overseas (Sprint, Microsoft, SVU) pay enough to the state to make it hurt. And stop the tax incentives for the companies who do hire cheap labor overseas. There are so many tax loopholes for these companies - eliminate them. Do something about the outcry (by these companies) to get more H1-B's in the country... in order to have cheap foreign labor on American soil. That is a very underreported story.
I guess there are some who would call these ideas 'protectionism' or 'populist' ideas.
“AT&T better not count on protection from the Constitution”
Being was Ct, I can say Blumenthal is a Spitzer clone.
He has no respect for the law, business or workers. He’s only interested in headlines.
If only he would get caught with a hooker...
Mandating mediocrity in the New NAZI police state!
Unfortunately it probably doesn’t make business sense (even with all the regulations&fees), it sure does cut down on the profit margin of AT&T per customer in that state though..
Yep. Remove every single asset possible, ASAP from the state. Eff 'em. And I live here. I hate Blunmie. What a major asshat.
Yep. If I were ATT, we’d just stop providing service in the state.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.