Statement by the Communications Workers of America on the Public Policy Issues Raised By Telephone Companies Offering Video Services
The Communications Workers of America (CWA) represents approx 500,000 telecommunications employees nationwide: 95,000 at SBC (+15,000 from AT&T merger), 66,000 at Verizon, and employees at many other telecom companies including Qwest, Avaya etc. Approximately 55,000 of those employees are here in California. We also represent a much smaller number of cable employees – approximately 600 here in California, although we did represent nearly 1000 more before Comcast took over from AT&T Broadband and systematically proceeded to intimidate and misinform workers about unions, refuse to bargain where workers voted from representation and when all else failed – orchestrated decertification campaigns to bring about a union environment. But we are in the process of continuing to work with cable employees despite fierce opposition from their employees throughout the country.
We believe that competition in the delivery of video services is not only beneficial but much needed as the monopolies that the cable industry have been able to maintain are not good for community or for customers.
Competition must promote quality universal service.
Public policy has long supported universal affordable quality telephone service to all Americans. California lawmakers should build upon those policies to encourage investment in broadband networks and to ensure that all California citizens have affordable access to quality high-speed Internet services. CWA believes that policy makers should establish social compacts in which all video providers commit to enforceable deployment timetables to build out truly high speed internet networks. In addition, we ask you to consider the notion of tax credits to spur deployment in underserved areas.
Competition must take place on an even playing field.
Rules and regulations implementing competition must not advantage any service provider or technology. This to us does not mean that every franchise offered needs to be identical to every other franchise. Or that every fee that a cable operator pays must be met dollar for dollar by telephone companies who must pay significant fees and taxes at the state level that are not met by cable operators. Nor does it mean that telephone companies should have to offer service in an area that precisely matches the incumbent cable operator’s franchise area. In fact requiring telephone providers to offer service outside their designated service areas would unfairly burden them. What equity means to us is that all providers need to meet basic societal obligations: respect the rights of local governments where they are providing service including adequately compensating them, meet public access requirements, offer service in a non-discriminatory way. AB 903 legislation supported by Verizon would meet these goals.
Competition must be based on superior technology and service, not on low wages or abuse of labor law.
Regulations must hold service providers to high quality standards. It’s our experience that quality service depends on skilled, career employees with the training and autonomy to meet customer needs. The latter is obviously one of our greatest policy concerns so want to focus briefly on that.
California law already provides that in determining whether to grant an additional franchise a municipality shall consider a number of factors including: whether there will be significant positive or negative impacts on the community being served and whether other societal interests generally will be met. (Section 53066.3(a) (1) & (6). We believe critical to the analysis of whether a community will be positively or negatively impacted is the question of the types and numbers of jobs created in the community as a result of a new franchise, the level of pay/benefits of said jobs, and as the compare to the existing operators. It’s our experience that cable industry consistently takes the low road – contracting out services, relying excessively on contingent/temporary workers, refusing to allow employees to collectively bargain etc.
It is CWA’s position that video providers who comply with labor laws, and put money back into community through creation of stable, secure jobs should not only be granted a franchise; lawmakers may want to consider a system that would enable them to receive tax credits and other incentives. Failure to take action in this regard may result in an unfair advantage being gained by those who deserve it least – those who cut jobs and labor costs and return none of the profits they are gaining back to their communities. That to us is not the “level” playing field that the California cable association claims to be seeking.
While the public policy issues raised by telephone companies’ entry into the video market and cable’s entry into telephone market are complex, CWA believes that policy makers should find ways that encourage companies to pursue growth strategies that create new services and technologies for customers and at the same time new jobs for California workers.
