To a whole generation, speech extolling simple decency has become an act of extreme courage...talk about the soft bigotry of lowered expectations.

BTW Ezra, nobody is listening [it's the holidays] and he is not doing anything to upset the powers that be, when he does and the rubber hits the road, that's when praise singing such as this are merited.

If you are going to sing praise of Obama, the hiring of Shinseki would be better material. Unfortunately, he hired Shinseki away from where he would do the most good...keeping soldiers from getting hurt in the first place.

It's happening in his home town (or "home" I should say, in light of your Harvey Milk post).

So while it may not be an interest group that gave him big $$ (although labor did), it's easy enough to express support that the company pay them "if" they earned it.

I'm reminded of bitter pro-lifers' complaints about the Republican Party's cosmetic appeal to the evangelical right.
Expressing personal support for strikers is a cost-free way to assure nervous progressives that Obama is on their team - something that's roughly equivalent to Bush giving a fiery speech at National Right to Life. When it comes to actual legislation, however, I'd still be worried.

Slightly more operationally, it's making me look forward to learning who Obama will appoint to Labor, and arguably more importantly, who he'll put on the National Labor Relations Board.

I'm hoping for Bob MacManus, myself.

BTW Ezra, nobody is listening [it's the holidays] and he is not doing anything to upset the powers that be,

It's December 8. More than a week after Thanksgiving, more than two weeks before Christmas. By this standard, no one is listening for about a fifth of the year... which, well, might be accurate, but stretches the phrase to the point of meaninglessness.

Let's see Obama talk about this like Riech does

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus7-2008dec07,1,395665,full.column

That said, a bailout's a bailout, at least as far as taxpayers are concerned. So why are we holding blue-collar workers to a different standard than their white-collar kin?

... lawmakers in Washington have been more assertive about wringing concessions from the auto industry, whereas the heads of Wall Street firms essentially got by with slaps on the wrist.

For the record, the government is pumping an additional $20 billion into Citigroup and backing more than $200 billion in troubled assets. In return, taxpayers have received a pledge that the company will cut its dividend to shareholders and will take a hard look at how much it pays its top execs.

Yeah, we drove a pretty hard bargain. Of course, jobs are being cut and bonuses lost throughout the financial world, but that's more a response to the crisis than an offer from workers to help.

General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler asked for $34 billion in loans to stave off possible bankruptcy filings. The companies say they'll restructure their operations, sell or eliminate low-performing brands and factories, cut the salaries of senior managers and focus on developing more fuel-efficient vehicles.

For its part, the UAW pledged to suspend its controversial "jobs bank" program, which enables laid-off workers to keep receiving most of their paychecks, and to delay billions of dollars in payments from the automakers for a new retiree healthcare fund.

The union also expressed a rare willingness to revisit other terms of its contracts with the Big Three. The UAW represents more than 700,000 workers in a variety of industries in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico.

Testifying before a Senate panel Thursday, the UAW's Gettelfinger laid it on the line. "I believe we could lose General Motors by the end of this month" unless Congress approves the bailout, he said.

Why was there no pressure on workers at Citigroup, insurance giant American International Group Inc. and mortgage behemoths Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make similarly team-spirited pitches for their respective employers?

Why was no gesture of humility required from the white-collar crowd, even something as relatively minor as a 5% pay cut until their respective companies return to more solid financial footing?

"It's completely backward," said Eve Weinbaum, director of the labor studies program at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. "There's this perception that the people who make things with their hands somehow count for less than people on Wall Street who sit around thinking up things like derivatives.

"You could argue that an economy doesn't need derivatives but does need manufacturing."

The UAW, long criticized (unfairly, I believe) for being too powerful and too greedy, has done the stand-up thing in offering concessions to protect jobs at a perilous time for the auto industry.

White-collar workers on Wall Street, many of whom pull down hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in salary and bonuses, have shown no such spine or self-sacrifice as their employers pass the hat among taxpayers.

Reich is right: A bailout should require concessions from all stakeholders, not just the top brass and certainly not just the public.

By that standard, the auto industry has earned its piece of the pie, while Wall Street firms, silver spoons in hand, are enjoying their dessert on the house.

that the President of the United States is personally expressing support for a union's sit-down strike.

It's a point well taken, but it's not actually true. Hard as it is to remember, there still is an official POTUS who isn't Obama, doesn't support the sit-down strikers, and is still capable of doing a lot of damage even in the best case scenario where he just doesn't do anything at all for the next six weeks but drink himself into a stupor in the Oval Office.

Man, that's why I'm a happy Democrat right now. I can hear the teeth gnashing of my Republican adversaries right now & it sounds sooo good!

From what I have read, I would quarrel with the statement that Obama doesn't owe much to labor from the election. Seems to me their aggressive help was critical to Pennsylvania and Ohio, and that reports from the hinterlands in those states in the last few weeks -- including reports of how those "angry white blue collar workers" had been won over -- was a hige factor in his momentum.

I don't understand this issue.

Did the company violate the labor contract? If so, why not just sue for the benefits, rather than (illegally) occupying the property? Or is the firm bankrupt? The reports I've seen don't explain what is going on here. Anybody know?

Did the company violate the labor contract?

ed,

The reason why this has not been discussed is that it's unimportant to the left.

Bottom line is the company is always wrong, even if they didn't do anything wrong.

Ed,

Sometimes the solution requires a political one rather than a legal one.

Yeah, we drove a pretty hard bargain. Of course, jobs are being cut and bonuses lost throughout the financial world, but that's more a response to the crisis than an offer from workers to help.

Right. And when we see that kind of response from the UAW/auto companies--20-30% layoffs with minimal severance, 50-60% pay cuts across the board (that's what "no bonuses" means on Wall Street), a bailout might be justified.

Of course, in that case, a bailout wouldn't be needed.

But Micheline, what exactly is the problem that requires a solution?

Are the workers being denied something to which they are contractually entitled? If so, why won't a legal solution work? If not, why are they any more special than millions of other unemployed workers? Shouldn't the "solution" just be a system wide approach, like extending unemployment benefits, providing fiscal stimulus, etc.? Is this the "political" solution you mean? Why is Jesse Jackson involved?

I'm confused. Anybody know the story?

I have it on good authority from Openleft that Obama is a Centrist along the lines of Bill Clinton, and, therefore, I must conclude that Obama's support of the union's here is a lie to fool progressives.

More than that, i have it on good authority that he can do nothing to prove that he's not a Centrist. He exists. Therefore, he's a Centrist.

None of this has anything to do with trying to make a name for oneself in the new political landscape that's shaping up. Nope. Not at all. Obama's a Centrist. Anyone who will not admit is deluding themselves as per Brennan's posts.

Ed:

"The workers, members of Local 1110 of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, said they were owed vacation and severance pay and were not given the 60 days of notice generally required by federal law when companies make layoffs."

Basically, the company is breaking the law and its contracts. The problem is that Bank of America is blocking the company from paying what it owes, and it looks like the company is planning to go into bankruptcy and reopen under a new name (the company's owner just bought a new website with a different name for the company, for example).

As to why occupy the factory - let's say they sue the company, and while the case is proceeding, the company goes bankrupt, opens up under a new name, and hires a new non-union workforce. There's not much they can do in that situation. Occupying the factory seizes the strategic high ground, because as long as they're there, the company can't reopen without them.

Steven, something is funny about this story. If the company goes bankrupt then the "owner" will no longer be the owner...the company assets will be owned by the creditors.

If you're right and the firm is going bankrupt, won't the bankruptcy court give the workers whatever they are legally entitled to, based on their precedence in the bankruptcy?

This is not to say I have no sympathy for the workers; I just don't understand why they deserve more sympathy and attention than millions of others who have also lost their jobs. What makes this case different than when any other business goes bust?

"The workers, members of Local 1110 of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, said they were owed vacation and severance pay and were not given the 60 days of notice generally required by federal law when companies make layoffs."

Basically, the company is breaking the law and its contracts.

What does the federal law actually say?

Steve Atwell, have you seen this story?

People who apparently have ties to the financially strapped Republic Windows formed a limited liability corporation in Illinois last month, Echo Windows & Doors, that has bought a similar plant in western Iowa.

Sharon Gillman, who shares an address with Republic President and CEO Rich Gillman, is listed as an officer of Echo Windows & Doors LLC, which was incorporated in Illinois on Nov. 18, according to secretary of state records.

[snip]

Echo Windows officials told employees at the former TRACO manufacturing plant in Red Oak, Iowa, on Thursday that the workforce would be doubled from the current 50 employees because they have production orders lined up.

And Ed, who said anything about these workers being more deserving? Everyone who gets screwed by their bosses deserves justice. Hopefully, these folks will inspire others to stand up and fight, instead of hoping that the lawyers might fix it a year or two down the line, after people's families have broken up and they've lost their homes.

Labor Sec'y and NLRB posts that follow the law and protect workers from management scams and anti-union tactics are key.

But the labor laws and regulations are way way behind current times, and need a vigorous redo. For instance, criminal penalties should be available as remedies for breaking the labor laws.

I'm not trying to read the tea leaves of how Obama will act (except I expect lots of pragmatism). Time will tell.

In the meantime, I wonder if Bush will send in Federal Marshalls to clear the plant. That might be a setup for a federal/state confrontation since the IL governor isn't likely to just roll over. He's calling for a boycott of Bank of (un)America.

Apparently all of the workers in this plant are Latino, which is very curious. I suspect the owner hasn't been following wage and hour standards, since a non-diverse worker group doesn't just happen by chance in Chicago.

Pesto, I agree that everyone deserves justice, but I'm just trying to figure out what the injustice has been here. Are you saying that anyone whose business goes under has been "screwed?" I expect the Republic workers have rights to enforce the terms of their employment contract, and they have rights to unemployment benefits. What additional rights and benefits are you proposing they have? Or are you asserting that the law is unable enforce their employment contract (including whatever the terms of the contract are in the event of bankruptcy?)

In short, are these people who have just been "screwed" by a business going under in a bad economy, or were they "screwed" in some more specific way?

Pesto - thanks for finding that story, I was having trouble finding the name of the "new" company.

Ed:
The law in question is the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988, which requires a 60-day notice in the event of plant closings or mass layoffs.

As for what rights, it's the right to the pay and benefits they've accrued through their labor. Now this is a debt owed by the company to its workers, and it can be wiped out by a bankruptcy court.

But what I'm referring to is that the law can lag behind reality; if the company gets sued, it can still act in a way that can frustrate the workers from getting their legal rights. Workers, especially unemployed workers, have little money available for a long legal fight - so if the company stalls, delays, and appeals for more than a few months while simultaneously going into Chapter 11 or the like and reopening under a new corporate entity with a new workforce, a lot of the workers will give up and focus on getting new jobs, while the company sits on the money they earned. Occupying the factory serves as a tool to force immediate settlement by preventing that from happening.

Ed,

In case you couldn't figure out the Chicago Tribune story I linked to and quoted from, it appears that the owners of Republic have set up a separate company manufacturing the same products and are scaling up the plant due to increased orders. That plant, I'm sure by pure coincidence, is non-union.

Is that "screwed" enough for you?

As to the collective bargaining agreement: no one enforces union contracts by suing -- virtually every contract will have a grievance and arbitration clause. Arguing this out under those terms could take 4 to 6 months. Maybe they could get the boss to agree to expedited arbitration, but it's not a quick process in any case. In any case, direct action and grievances aren't mutually exclusive -- nearly any union that has its act together will use both simultaneously to increase pressure on the boss.

It also seems likely to me that Republic violated the WARN Act, though I'm not a lawyer or an expert on that law.

Again, in a bankruptcy the "owners" are wiped out. They are no longer the owners. It's limited liability, so they get to keep their personal assets, which they are free to use or invest as they see fit. But their equity in the business is wiped out.

Is this a bankruptcy? I can't tell from the reports.

Pesto, thanks for the link to the WARN act. I would guess that the firm would argue that they faced "unforeseeable business circumstances" when their line of credit was denied. I'm not a lawyer either, but it would appear that they might have a case here, depending on what warnings they got from the bank. In that case it would appear they are not obligated to provide notice, even without bankruptcy.

Perhaps you are arguing that the legal requirement that the employer provide notice should be extended and strengthened?

Ed,

The loan was for operations. The whole point of the bailout is for businesses to conduct their everyday business not for banks to hoard money. I do not categorize this as an unseen business circumstances". It seems like the company is trying to get out of the contract by using Bank of America as a culprit. By registering a new entity that is in the same of line of business indicates that the intent to breach the contract. This undermines the idea that "unforseeable business circumstances" played a role in the plant closing.

The loan was for operations. The whole point of the bailout is for businesses to conduct their everyday business not for banks to hoard money

At the same time, the banks got into trouble because loans were being made to unqualified recipients who couldn't pay the loans back.
The solution is not to bail them out and then force them to give loans to more bad risks.

the company assets will be owned by the creditors.

One of those creditors is the employees, who are still owed pay that they have earned. People keep forgetting this simple fact, mostly because they like the idea of "sticking" it to workers (in part because they wish they had someone to kick down). ed, when you actually own a business, you can cheat your creditors and employees all you like. Playing "pretend," however, is kind of pathetic.

Kaybeel,

I am not saying that banks should not exercise their judgment in giving loans. Well given the fact that they have formed and registered a company tells me that it is not struggling. In order for the business to be started you need to have good credit. In this instance it seems arbitrary of the bank to close the credit line. It seems like the banks are veering from one extreme to another. One where banks handing out loans like there was no tomorrow and the other of arbitrarily closing credit lines when it the situation doesn't warrant it. We need a balance between the two.