SBC said it would pull back its contract offer on the table for C...

Fri. after the bargaining between the company and CWA for a new 5- year contract stalled over job security and health care issues. The national bargaining was moved from Washington to regional tables in New Haven, Conn., Chicago, Austin, and Pleasanton, Cal., where the talks resumed Fri. afternoon. One of the 4 previous contracts expired April 1, and the others April 3. An SBC spokesman said the company didn’t expect any financial damage as a result of the strike. SBC said its communications network and services were functioning with “normal 99.99% reliability,” as contractors, retirees and management workers replaced technicians and customer service representatives who went on strike. The spokesman said there “could be some delays in some services, like installation,” but said “most customers won’t notice a thing.” CWA called the strike “a limited job action,” saying a longer strike could lead to SBC losing its major customers and cause other damage to the company. But it said it was asking SBC customers to agree to switch to AT&T, which operates in 11 SBC states, if the union asked them to. SBC said its “very strong proposal” called for: (1) A health care co-pay increase to 10% from 4-7%, with no monthly contribution required. (2) A guaranteed job offer in the state an employee works in if his or her job becomes redundant. (3) A 4% lump sum pay increase the first year, 2.5% each the 2nd and 3rd years and 2.25% increases with cost of living adjustments the 4th and 5th years. (4) Pension band increases. CWA rejected the proposal, demanding stronger employment security and preservation of health care benefits. It said a one-time lump sum payment of 4%, instead of a 3% base wage increase it asked for, would save SBC more than $1 billion over 4 years. “Incredibly, SBC wants to take $1 billion out of our members’ pockets in wages, not to pay for rising health costs, but just to fatten its profits,” said CWA Pres. Morton Bahr. But the SBC spokesman said the health care changes the company had proposed wouldn’t allow it to pay less than it does now. He said health care costs were increasing 10% per year, and even with the changes proposed the company would still have to pay $9,500 per employee next year, compared to $8,000 per employee in 2003 for health care. He said the co-pay would still be “far less” than the 38% most Americans pay, and would average only about $35 per month. It would also be less than what SBC managers pay. The changes would just “help offset the double digit increase” in health care costs SBC pays, the spokesman said. SBC also said its proposal provided for wage increases “even better than those negotiated by the CWA last year with Verizon.” CWA also criticized the company’s job security offer. Although SBC would guarantee a new job for surplus employees in the same state, it wouldn’t have to be in the same city. The spokesman said if an employee turned down the new job offer, it would be considered a resignation. The company also proposed utilizing union-represented employees for future technology work, such as fiber-to-the-premises, Wi-Fi, video, DataComm and DSL technical support, as long as the labor agreements for this work were competitive on wages, benefits and overall costs with those of outside contractors. It proposed that qualified surplus employees move to wholly owned subsidiaries before those subsidiaries hired from outside. SBC said its competitive environment explained its difficulties negotiating the new contract. “We lost 10 million access lines in the last 3 years,” the spokesman said. He said the changes the company asked for would help it to “offset” some costs that continued to rise. SBC union employees haven’t been on strike since 1983.