Home » Charter Spectrum »Public Policy & Gov't » Currently Reading:

Charter Sues Striking Union Over Alleged Acts of Sabotage; Lobbyist Earns from Both Sides

Phillip Dampier October 16, 2017 Charter Spectrum, Public Policy & Gov't 2 Comments

Members of IBEW Local 3 have been on strike for about seven months. (Image: IBEW Local 3)

Charter Communications is suing the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 3 alleging its striking members are responsible for repeated acts of vandalism and sabotage of Charter’s cable service Spectrum in the New York City area.

The lawsuit, filed last week in Manhattan Supreme Court, claims union members have cut or damaged cables and other property at least 125 times since the union went out on strike in March.

“The sabotage was done purely out of maliciousness,” Charter’s attorneys allege in the lawsuit. “The saboteurs clearly knew the optimal locations where they could quickly cut cable lines to multiple customers without being harmed or observed, suggesting they are cable technicians who work for Charter.”

A Charter spokesman said the company filed the suit to get union members to stop damaging its equipment.

Union members suggest Charter brings no hard evidence to the table about who is responsible. Union officials have repeatedly denied involvement and have urged those responsible to stop, noting it risks turning Spectrum customers against the union.

Meanwhile, a powerful New York City lobbying firm appears to be getting rich representing Charter Communications while also representing three of the cable company’s biggest critics in City Hall, including New York City Mayor Bill deBlasio.

The Daily News reports the MirRam Group represents the mayor, City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito and Public Advocate Letitia James. James has been a client since 2013 while Mayor deBlasio hired the company in April to assist him with his re-election campaign. The lobbying firm has collected $150,000 from Charter and its predecessor Time Warner Cable in the last 12 months.

The newspaper reports the terms of the contract require MirRam Group to promote Charter’s business with ‘key public officials’ in city and state government, including monitoring legislative developments that could impact on the cable company in New York. The lobbying firm is also required to “promote Charter’s public policy interests” and is not supposed to “represent other clients on matters adverse to or in conflict with” the cable company’s goals.

Currently there are 2 comments on this Article:

  1. FredH says:

    ….talk about flimsy (or no) evidence…..good luck Charter, wasting our cable fees on a lawsuit they stand no chance of winning.

    • Doug says:

      So what are they (Charter Spectrum) supposed to do? Continue repairing the sabotage? Pay for “protection?” I am certain that those customers whose cable(s) keep(s) getting cut want action, and I doubt that Spectrum is going to hire around the clock security to police their infrastructure. Such action would be prohibitively expensive.

      I agree they have no chance in court, because even if they catch someone, and if that someone happens to belong to the union, there is no way that the suspect’s actions can be proven to have been sanctioned by the union. All that could happen are criminal charges against the suspect should Spectrum be able to prove wrong doing via video or something else.







Search This Site:

Contributions:

Recent Comments:

  • BobInIllinois: Correction to above: MetroNet so far has 3 SW Chicago suburb retail offices in Oswego, Plainfield, and Romeoville, IL....
  • BobInIllinois: Thanks for the MetroNet financial info above. Detecting a private equity trend in these fiber overbuilders. Overbuilders seem to be interested in sm...
  • msexceptiontotherule: Something tells me that transparency isn't Pai's top priority. Just when it seems like things are slightly not terrible......
  • MarkLex: I live in Lexington and I actually have had Windstream for years and it's very consistent. But this is awesome. More competition!!...
  • Ian L: MetroNet's prices aren't too bad, honestly. Sure, they're not the $55 Google is charging for gigabit in San Antonio. But you can also get TV from them...
  • JayS: "Pai’s proposal would require internet service providers to disclose whether they allow blocking or slowing down of consumer web access or permit so-c...
  • Josh: sigh Of course he does. Elections have consequences, people......
  • kaniki: I would say, as a whole, most places really only have one option. Especially in rural areas.. The only places that will usually have at least 2, will ...
  • kaniki: Trust me, I know this.. Look at the current merger / takeover / buyout in alaska.. They are charging something like $180 to get unlimited internet at ...
  • EJ: As I have stated before if these companies are smart they will collaborate together and make it clear that if net neutrality is reversed they will col...
  • EJ: I think you are confused on what Net Neutrality really is. It is not about ads, it is about the ability for your provider to control the bandwidth bas...
  • kaniki: "It could give internet providers such as ... more flexibility to use bundles of services and creative pricing to make their favored content more attr...

Your Account:

%d bloggers like this: