Confirming once again that the New York Times would never think of subjecting its op-ed columnists to the indignity of fact-checking, the incorrigible Bob Herbert is at it again with a column praising the recent Republic Windows sit-down strike in Chicago as having secured "severance pay and benefits that [workers] were owed by law", with no mention that the law's "unforeseeable business circumstances" provision cast much doubt on whether the WARN benefits were in fact owed by law or not -- and if they weren't, then the action was one to coerce the payout of cash that no one owed. At Prawfsblawg, Rick Esenberg of Marquette is troubled by the "secondary -- if not 'boycott'" aspect of aiming the campaign at third-party banks, rather than at the company itself that owed (or didn't owe) the WARN payment. And Carter did a nice post at ShopFloor, for which I'm grateful, summarizing my City Journal piece of last week on the action.