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
Related Entries:
- Chevron-Ecuador and Steven Donziger update
- Mac Donald on stop-and-frisk trial
- On WNYC today to discuss line sitters and the Supreme Court
- David Larcker on union activism
- Bainbridge on unions
- Terrance Williams, murderer, in the New York Times
- Police union abuse
- CLP Director James Copland in the Washington Examiner
- Labor unions spend four times as much as previously thought on politics
- New Podcast: Season-end report for the 2012 proxy season
- Manhattan Institute releases its Season-End Report for the 2012 Proxy Season
- Another big setback for public sector unions
- NYC lawsuit payouts: $560M in 2011
- New Webinar: Shareholder activism concerning corporate spending disclosures
- Proxy Monitor: Potential Influence of ISS over Shareholder Votes
![]() |
Rafael Mangual Project Manager, Legal Policy rmangual@manhattan-institute.org |
![]() |
Communications Manhattan Institute communications@manhattan-institute.org |