The following letter is the response sent from out C/T office to Frederick N. Murray, Vice President AT&T Employee and Labor Relations and Christopher W. Offline, Vice President AT&T Compensation, Benefits and Employee Relations.

Dear Fred & Chris

This letter is in response to your letter dated February 12, 2002 in which the company rejected the union's offer for a contract extension.

Like you, I am somewhat perplexed by the company's statements that the union simply repeated its demands. We made it clear from the beginning that unless you were authorized to discuss the issue of job security we were not interested in discussing anything. This is our members' top bargaining concern and needs to be creatively addressed.

I find it the height of hypocrisy for the company to refuse to address job security concerning its employees but in the most recent AT&T proxy statement it has a (3) three-year guarantee of employment for CEO Armstrong after the merger with Comcast. All we are asking for is to be treated the same way. I'm sure you agree our members are the backbone of AT&T. They built this company, made it extremely profitable and deserve no less.

In any bargaining, be it contract extension or normal bargaining, the parties meet, offer proposals and counter proposals. In this case, even though we gave you our members concerns up front, you still sent us a proposal without any job security issues being discussed. You never bothered at any time to address the union concerns over job security. This is not bargaining, this is the company demanding the union relinquish its right to collectively bargain for its membership, a take it or leave mentality. Instead of dealing with the union directly over the issues, you chose to deal through the press and AT&T Today. I hope this response finds its way into the AT&T Today as well.

It's sad that company Leaders are spending so much time on "contingency planning activities" that they have no time to discuss job issues so central to their employees lives. In our proposals we asked to meet with them but we were never afforded that opportunity. Contingency planning is costly. Perhaps if as much effort was spent on trying to save the business instead, everyone could have a job for the next (3) three years and there would be no need to take money from the pension plan to pay for term pay.

We regret the company has chosen to reject the union's counter proposal as well as the offer to commence bargaining immediately. We stand ready to meet at any point provided the company is ready to discuss issues of mutual concern. If not, we will discuss our issues in formal bargaining on Monday March 11, 2002.

Regards,

Ralph V. Maly, Jr.
Vice President