Is T-Mobile misleading customers, or are major labor unions trying to take the "Uncarrier" down? Do we have to choose just one?

A "coalition of consumer groups" is complaining that it's misleading for T-Mobile to have no service contracts, but sell phone hardware on 24-month layaway payment plans. According to USA Today, the New York state attorney general is also investigating.

The consumer groups refer to the responsibility to pay off the value of your purchased hardware as "contracts with financial penalties for early termination," specifically using a phrase ("early termination") that was common to the two-year service contracts T-Mobile eliminated a few years ago.

The use of equipment installment plans—monthly payment or layaway plans—has become much more common in the mobile-phone industry over the past few years as a way to eliminate phone subsidies while still hiding the true cost of smartphones from consumers. All four carriers now offer a way to pay for phones over 24 months.

More disturbingly, the groups complain about T-Mobile's use of debt collection agencies, saying that 49 percent of consumers with debt collection issues had little or no notice of the debt from T-Mobile before it was referred to an agency, and 71 percent of consumers with accounts in collection said T-Mobile "gave incorrect information to debt collection agencies."

The groups also complain that T-Mobile drags its heels on paying switching fees for customers coming from other carriers, with payment for other carriers' termination fees taking "significantly longer than the eight weeks the company claims."

Follow the Money

The consumer groups have several valid points here, but it's also worth understanding that this is part of a long campaign by major labor unions and AT&T-funded community groups against T-Mobile.

Change to Win is an alliance of three major unions: the Teamsters, SEIU, and the UFW. Those unions are aligned with the Communications Workers of America (CWA), which has been in a very vocal five-year-long battle with T-Mobile USA because T-Mobile USA is a non-union shop.

Once again, the CWA has some valid points in its (many, long) arguments about T-Mobile. But its scorched-earth stance has also led the union to take some very consumer-unfriendly positions, such as strongly advocating for the disastrous merger of AT&T and T-Mobile primarily because AT&T is a union shop and T-Mobile is not. The Department of Justice concluded that the merger would have led to less competition, less innovation, higher prices, and many jobs lost.

Several of the other organizations in the letter are tied to either the CWA or AT&T. USAction lists the CWA as a "national affiliate." The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) has AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint—but not T-Mobile—on its "Corporate Alliance advisory board," and also supported that awful AT&T/T-Mobile merger proposal. The OCA Advocate organization has AT&T and Verizon, but not Sprint or T-Mobile.

Other supporting organizations, the Center for Media Justice and Color of Change, seem to be clean at first glance, but Change to Win is definitely driving the car here.

Who's Zooming Who?

Change to Win doesn't seem to be analyzing whether other carriers are also misleading customers, except to say that "T-Mobile has a higher rate of aggregate complaints than AT&T and Verizon based on data from the BBB."

So while it's worth looking into whether T-Mobile is playing fast and loose with sleazy debt collectors, it's worth looking into whether all the carriers are doing so—and these union-backed, partially AT&T-funded organizations seem primarily interested in T-Mobile's wrongdoing.

If that changes, it will make Change to Win look like a more winning organization. According to USA Today, "Change To Win's Geiser said the group is concerned about similar practices by other wireless carriers. The group is focusing on T-Mobile in their ... letter because it has led the no-contract trend, she said."

Further Reading