On Thursday, May 4, 2006, the Verizon Shareholder Annual Meeting took place in Overland Park, Kansas, at the Overland Park Marriott Hotel. I attended along with Ann Roughley and Joe Eicher, representing all CWA Retired Members and presenting shares from all our members, active and retired.
A.J. Villegas, CWA Staff, Kansas City, Edie Jones and Ed Pinkleman, also Kansas City Staff, joined us. CWA 6450 President, Colleen Downing attended with members of her local, along with members of CWA 6327 and CWA 6360. We were very thrilled to have all of them there. A.J. presented item 6 for the CWA, which requested that the Verizon BOD not nominate two or more persons for election to its board who sit together as members of the board of another public company.
Dave Reardon, IBEW 2222, came all the way from Boston with Jack Toomey -also with a large amount of Proxies- read a powerful statement in support of Verizon retirees. Dave said to Seidenberg and the Executive Board, "I feel it's sinful and malicious that the company could fail to give the retirees, who built this company, a raise in pension benefits while you and your cohorts drive home in your Brinks trucks every night,"
I read a statement from CWA RMC Chair, Ed Creegan. Ed was unable to attend the Shareholders meeting this year due to other duties in organizing members in the Albany area. In his statement, he reprimanded Verizon for its stance against the Verizon retirees, particularly those on Medicare. Ed’s statement was well received by those in attendance, particularly the CWA Kansas City area members who supported us at the meeting.
“In announcing preliminary results of the shareholder vote at Verizon Communications Inc.'s annual meeting here, the company reported that shareholders approved the election of each of Verizon's 13 directors standing for election to a one-year term. Each director received 80 percent or more of the vote.” Verizon reported this in a press release. The fact is that if you don’t withhold your vote on this proposal, that vote is counted as a “For” vote. This was objected to with Shareholder proposal 4, in which “61 percent voted in favor of a resolution requesting that director nominees be elected by the affirmative vote of the majority of votes cast at an annual meeting. Verizon's Board of Directors, which has been monitoring the active debate on the majority voting issue, said it will review its policy and consider the shareholder vote as well as all of the issues involved in making a change.” the company reported.
On resolution 3, “with a 99 percent vote, shareholders also ratified the appointment of Ernst & Young as the company's independent auditor.”
Although the other shareholder proposals were defeated, “they received the following affirmative votes: cumulative voting, 44 percent; composition of board directors, 25 percent; directors on common boards, 19 percent; separate chairman and CEO, 48 percent; performance-based equity compensation, 20 percent; and disclosure of political contributions, 33 percent. All vote tallies are considered preliminary until the final results are tabulated and certified by independent election inspectors.”
Item 3, Cumulative Voting, 44% (up from 39% last year)
Item 4, Majority Vote for Election of Directors, 61% (up from 43%)
Item 5, Composition of Board of Directors, 25% (same as last year)
Item 6, Directors on Common Boards, 19%
Item 7, Separate Chairman and CEO, 48% (up from 36%)
Item 8, Performance-Based Equity Compensation, 20%
Item 9, Disclosure of Political Contributions, 33% (up from 15%)
There were other shareholders, such as Mike Carr who though neither an employee nor retiree of Verizon holds 3300 shares of Verizon stock as part of his retirement portfolio. He reprimanded Seidenberg and the BOD for the poor performance of Verizon shares.
The last shareholder allowed to speak, before a bewildered Seidenberg ended the meeting, was a local shareowner that stated that the Verizon Board was inattentive; BOD members Messrs Storey and Stafford, were joking with BOD member next to them and spending time tending their own business to their aides during meeting. One BOD member was reading a paper during the meeting. The shareholder further said that this shouldn't occur when they are paid $200,000 "for a part-time" job, he also told Ivan that two BOD's were dozing off during the meeting.
Dave Readon, Jack Toomey, Bob Rehm, Bill Jones, and the presence of Union members appeared to cause Seidenberg to get slightly "unglued" in his thinking, forgetting to answer material he asked us all to hold until later, earlier on in the meeting. Seidenberg was "hammered" about his salary and other compensation/and retiree and pension/healthcare issues throughout the meeting, only to be "slammed" with the suggestion of an Inattentive and disinterested Board of Directors. Ivan and team and the BOD exited meeting in a flash of record time - not staying to talk with shareholders, which flies in the face of Verizon position that meetings are held in faraway places so ALL shareholders get a chance to meet and talk with them. This last shareholder asked Seidenberg why bother having a meeting when the Executive Board is not paying attention. At all the past shareholder meetings that I have attended there are some positive remarks to Seidenberg and the Executive Board. At this year’s, there was not one positive statement to them.
After reading Ed’s statement, I then took Verizon CEO and BOD for mishandling shareholder money by holding the shareholder meeting so far away from the Verizon footprint, for squandering the wealth and resources that they were given guardianship of in 1984, at the divestiture of the Bell System, and for withholding Earned Benefits from Verizon Retirees. Finally, I asked a question, which was, "Is $84K the base pay for any Technician in Verizon?"
He wanted me to talk with a member of his Executive Board to get the figures. I said that I thought the Shareholders had a right to know the answer to this question. He first said that he didn’t have the numbers. I said that I did and read him the wages from the current CWA 1103 contract. He then said the information was, “Confidential.” I said how could it be confidential when he ran a full-page ad in the NY Times with this information and also a 30 second commercial on Network TV with this same information. After much ducking and dodging, he finally became so flustered that his answer was, "This is a LOADED NUMBER, including Benefits and overtime." (The emphasis on loaded number is mine.) He then admitted verbally and publicly, that this number was a loaded number, in other words, how much each employee earns, including their benefits. At every other shareholder meeting that I have attended, and in every correspondence that I have had with him over the past 6 years, his response to my assertion that the pension plans belong to the employees, his answer is, "The pension plans don't belong to you, they don't belong to me, they belong to the company."
Clearly, he and the board are aware that the pension plans belong to the employees, as he made the statement that $84K was a loaded number, because in 2003- during contract negotiations- placed that full-page advertisement in the NY Times, and ran that Commercial on Network TV, which stated that the average pay for a Technician for Verizon was $84K. Also, on August 25, 2003, during the morning news on NBC, at approximately 6:30 a.m., the TV advertisement that Verizon ran on the major networks stated clearly, in print, at the end of this commercial:
NY technicians EARN an annual average
of $84,000 in salary and benefits
100% Healthcare Premiums
and Pension Benefits paid
Up to 5 weeks paid vacation
A voice over states, "At Verizon, we take care of our employees, because we believe that satisfied employees provide the best customer service and that's our number one priority."
The emphasis on "earn" is mine. These ads, along with Mr. Seidenberg's admission at this years Shareholder meeting that the number is a loaded number, prove that the pension plans are earned, and the plans do not belong to the company, they are earned by the employees, therefore, they are ours.
Also, if 100% Healthcare Premiums are paid, why are retirees who are on Medicare paying our own Medicare payments which are now in the $80.00 range, when Verizon is putting a cap of $27.90 on the Premium that Verizon is recompensing us? And if 100% of Pension Benefits are paid, why are we not receiving 100% of the Pension Benefits that we are supposed to be receiving? Retirees in the defined Pension Plan have not had a COLA in 15 years. Other retirees who took a lump sum payout were cheated of the full amount that should have been paid from their earned benefits.
These are the facts that must be dealt with at every Verizon Shareholder meeting and every Shareholder meeting where CWA members have a stake. We must be vigilant and speak out when these corporations are reaching into our pockets and in all ways, stealing from us by withholding our earnings from us. We must vote our proxies appropriately and exercise our rights as Shareholders and convince all Shareholders that we have their welfare at heart as well. When we attend these meetings and meet with the other Shareholders in a friendly and informative way, we have an opportunity to act as ambassadors of goodwill for our CWA Union Family.
I would like to end with an observation on the comment on the voice over statement by Verizon,
"At Verizon, we take care of our employees, because we believe that satisfied employees provide the best customer service and that's our number one priority."
This is an interesting statement because as well as a tremendous amount of Verizon security, Verizon had hired Overland Park police and K-9 officers to control the expected “unruly crowd.” Of course, as always, we were very respectful of our fellow shareholders and our members were a well-behaved, attentive audience showing their support with vigorous applause and raucous laughter where appropriate. As long as Verizon and our other employers continue to insinuate and assert that we Union Members are thugs, we must continue to present ourselves in the manner of the CWA members who attended this meeting in our stead.
Finally, I would like to stress how grateful we are to these members from Locals 6327, 6360 and 6450, who don’t work for Verizon but for AT&T and SBC, who are committed to our Union Family and gave their time to us to represent us. AJ Villegas told us that he wants Corporate America to know that wherever they may hold Shareholder meetings, CWA will be there.
Pamela M. Harrison, President
CWA 1103 RMC
