The conditions imposed by the California Public Utilities Commission when it approved T-Mobile’s takeover of Sprint will stand, at least for now. The CPUC decided earlier this month to reject a request to re-do its decision made by opponents of the deal. Tweaks were made to the April decision that approved the merger, but those amount to yes, we meant what we said.
Requests for rehearing are often made but rarely granted. It’s a procedural box that needs to be ticked before a CPUC decision can be challenged in court, either by T-Mobile or its opponents.
T-Mobile is also asking for changes to the CPUC’s conditions, but it’s using a different process – a petition for modification of the decision. Among other things, it wants to remove a requirement to add 1,000 new jobs while keeping the combined T-Mobile/Sprint workforce in California more or less intact.
Although T-Mobile “voluntarily committed” to keep its post-merger California headcount the same as the pre-merger total, that included a plan to hire 1,000 people for a new call center in Fresno County. So 1,000 people elsewhere in California would lose their jobs. Or move to Fresno to take presumably lower paying positions.
In its objection, the Communications Workers of America, the primary telecoms union in California, said that data scraped from T-Mobile’s website shows the bloodletting is already underway…
From April 2020 to July 2020, in California, T-Mobile closed 16% of Sprint retail locations, 6% percent of T-Mobile branded stores and 2% of Metro stores. 6% of Boost stores were also closed during this period.
Industry sources back up that assertion.
T-Mobile didn’t dispute those numbers in its response, instead repeating its argument that the CPUC doesn’t have the authority to tell it to hire more people.
Modification petitions usually come to the same end as rehearing requests: technical tweaks might be made, but the substance of the CPUC’s original decision will stand. Whether the CPUC can enforce the decision is still an open question, though. I don’t doubt it’ll try, but given T-Mobile’s defiance, federal courts will provide the final answer.
My clients include California cities who do business with T-Mobile. I like to think that has no bearing on my commentary. Take it for what it’s worth.