T Mobile
T Mobile
T Mobile
CWA President Larry Cohen and a disguised, unidentified T-Mobile USA employee
pictured at a 2009 press conference announcing a coordinated unionizing effort.
In 2008, the CWA and ver.di launched a coordinated effort to unionize company
employees. A spokesman for the CWA called on the company to stop resisting
mobilization efforts and allow company employees to unionize as German employees of
T-Mobile USA's parent company, DT, have done. In response, the company released an
employee satisfaction study showing that more than seventy percent of the company's
40,000 workers were "very satisfied" with their jobs. Through a spokesman, the
company stated, "Despite the Communication Workers of America's periodic organizing
efforts for more than nine years, no group of T-Mobile employees has ever chosen to
be represented by a union. While our company is always striving to find ways to
improve, year after year, employees continue to view T-Mobile as a good place to
work where they have no need for, or interest in, a union."[136]
Political pressure[edit]
In 2009, a number of politicians, in one case acting after lobbying efforts by CWA
union activists, wrote letters to Ren Obermann, DT's chief executive officer, in
an effort to influence T-Mobile USA's labor practices in the U.S.[138]
In a March 13, 2009, letter, U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-MA) asked "why the
company's approach to labor rights are different in Germany than in the United
States". In an April 30, 2010, letter sent after lobbying by Communications Workers
of America activists, 26 Democratic members of Congress called on DT to protect and
respect workers' rights in the U.S.[138] A separate July 1, 2010, letter from seven
Republicans addressed the same issue.[139][140] On August 10, 2010, U.S. Senator
Bob Casey (D-PA) released a statement in support of the worker's efforts to
organize a union at the company.[141] In a letter, dated September 21, 2010,
fifteen Californian Members of Congress urged Obermann to take action and implement
fair and equitable labor relations.[citation needed]
In a November 5, 2009, letter, Thomas DiNapoli, New York State Comptroller and
Trustee of the New York State Common Retirement Fund, stated concerns about "the
potential impact on the value of T-Mobile that may result from a disenfranchised
workforce and the associated negative publicity that may impact T-Mobile's
profitability."[citation needed]
Reports[edit]
A Cover image of a report written by John Logan and published in 2009 by American
Rights at Work
On December 9, 2009, the non-profit organization American Rights at Work published
a report written by Prof. John Logan, Director of Labor Studies at San Francisco
State University, titled "Lowering the Bar or Setting the Standard? Deutsche
Telekom's U.S. Labor Practices". The report details behavior by the company that
the author perceives as anti-union including dissemination of anti-union materials,
intimidation and threats directed at pro-union workers, "captive audience meetings"
and the retention of anti-union specialists.[142] In the report, which is based on
documents from the National Labor Relations Board, internal company memos and
handbooks, and interviews with workers, Logan asserts that the company engaged in a
systematic campaign to prevent employees from forming a union and that DT was
guilty of operating by a double standard. He claims that Deutsche Telekom respects
workers' rights in Germany, where it cooperates closely with unions, but mistreats
workers in the United States and interferes with their right to organize.
[clarification needed][143]
On September 2, 2010, Human Rights Watch released a report written by Lance Compa
titled "A Strange Case: Violations of Workers' Freedom of Association in the United
States by European Multinational Corporations". The report concludes that "company
policy has translated into practices that leave the workforce fearful about even
seeking union representation."[144] DT proclaims its adherence to international
labor law and standards that are embodied in German domestic laws. But HRW found
that "T-Mobile USA's harsh opposition to workers' freedom of association in the
United States betrays Deutsche Telekom's purported commitment to social
responsibility, impedes constructive dialogue with employee representatives, and in
several cases, has violated ILO and OECD labor and human rights standards".[145]
Workplace activities[edit]
At the company's Allentown, Pennsylvania, call center, security guards were ordered
by company managers to write up incident reports whenever union supporters appeared
on nearby public grounds and to record the license plate numbers of employees who
stopped to take leaflets. In 2006, the National Labor Relations Board found that
these activities violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act.[146]
In 2008, company management in the Pacific Northwest and Southwest Retail Divisions
sent a memorandum to store managers instructing them to immediately report any
union activity to their supervisors.[147] Human Rights Watch states, "The NLRB has
long held that such activity interferes with, restrains, and coerces employees in
the exercise of Section 7 rights in violation of workers' right to freedom of
association."[148]
Information Security[edit]
Nicolas Jacobsen was charged with intruding into the company's internal network in
January 2005.[149] Reports indicated that for about a year Jacobsen had access to
customer passwords, e-mail, address books, Social Security numbers, birth dates,
and Sidekick photos. Affected customers included members of the United States
Secret Service. Secret Service informant identified Jacobsen as part of "Operation
Firewall" which provided evidence that Jacobsen had attempted to sell customer
information to others for identity theft. T-Mobile USA and the Secret Service did
not elaborate on the methods Jacobsen used to gain access but sources close to the
case indicated that Jacobsen exploited an unpatched flaw in the Oracle WebLogic
Server application software used by the company.[150] Additional SQL injection
vulnerabilities with the company's web site were reported by Jack Koziol of the
InfoSec Institute.[151]
T-Mobile offers access to voice mail without the input of a password by default.
Parties acting in bad faith may be able to access such voice mailboxes via Caller
ID spoofing. To avoid this possibility, T-Mobile recommends that all customers
password protect their mailboxes, but still offers the no password configuration by
default due to customer demand.[152]
On June 6, 2009, a message posted from an email account "pwnmobile_at_Safe-
mail.net" to the Full Disclosure mailing list claimed that the company's network
had been breached and showed sample data. The sender offered "databases,
confidential documents, scripts and programs from their servers, financial
documents up to 2009" to the highest bidder.[153][154] On June 9, the company
issued a statement confirming the breach but stating that customer data was safe.
It claimed to have identified the source document for the sample data and believe
it was not obtained by hacking.[155] A later statement claimed that there was not
any evidence of a breach.[156]
Privacy and surveillance[edit]
T-Mobile USA received a portion of the 1.3 million largely warrantless law
enforcement requests for subscriber information (including text messages and phone
location data) made in 2011, but refused to state how many requests it received.
[157] It did say that in the last decade, the number of requests have increased by
12 to 16 percent annually.[158]
Data retention policies[edit]
According to T-Mobile's privacy policy highlights, "Retention and Disposal",
information is retained for as long as there is business or tax need or as
applicable laws, regulations, or government orders require. T-Mobile notes that it
disposes of Personal Information, uses reasonable procedures designed to erase or
render it unreadable (for example, shredding documents and wiping electronic
media).[159]
In 2010, the Department of Justice (DOJ) released a document entitled, "Retention
Periods of Major Cellular Providers," to advise law enforcement agents seeking to
obtain cell phone records. This document was uncovered by the ACLU's coordinated
records request on cell phone location tracking by police. Notably, the document
showed that T-Mobile subscriber information was retained for 5 years and call
detail records were kept for 2 years (prepaid) and 5 years (postpaid).[160]
In 2013, Massachusetts Sen. Edward Markey revealed responses from the top four U.S.
wireless providers as well as U.S. Cellular, C Spire, and Cricket/Leap Wireless, to
his inquiry regarding user information disclosed to law enforcement officials. The
following was T-Mobile's response regarding data retention: T-Mobile US retains
customers' historic cell site information and cell tower dump information (180
days); call details records (710 years); text message content, data requests, and
geo-location data not stored; voicemail content (up to 21 days); subscriber
information (6 years after account is closed).[161]
Comparing the 2010 DOJ memo released by the ACLU and Massachusetts Senator Edward
Markey's 2013 wireless data retention disclosures, it should be noted that T-Mobile
increased the retention period for subscriber information from 5 years to 6 years.
T-Mobile also increased its call detail record retention from 2 years (prepaid) and
5 years (postpaid) to 710 years.