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.
Republic Windows sit-down strike, cont'd
- Proxy Monitor: Potential Influence of ISS over Shareholder Votes
- New Proxy Monitor Report: Will alarming trends in shareholder activism continue in 2012?
- Speaking of NY Times bias...
- NY Times partisan hackery department: filibuster division
- "The Public-Union Albatross"
- Ohio union vote
- "NLRB Postpones Worker-Notification Rule"
- What's in the water in Wisconsin?
- Department of Labor seeks to narrow "advice exception" to disclosure laws
- Around the web, September 20
- California SB 469
- NLRB notice rule
- Around the web, September 2
- Self-parody NY Times op-ed department: "Ugly? You May Have A Case"
- Around the web, August 19
Center for Legal Policy at the