The last time this really happened in the US was the 1930s, the wave of sit-down strikes that won auto workers union recognition in places like Flint, Michigan. I don’t think it happened at all during the 40s or 50s; I wouldn’t be surprised if it happened in the 60s or 70s but no examples come to mind.
Here in the States it is that unusual but I’m damn glad it’s coming around again. More power to the Republic workers.
So Republic Windows finds in BoA’s refusal to provide credit a very convenient excuse to bail out of every obligation and set up shop in a ‘right-to-work’ state where they won’t be forced to deal with unions, leaving its former workforce literally out in the cold.
One of my brothers works in Finance. His first job was as treasurer of a corporation, handling between 14 and 42 companies at any given time. One of the tasks he did was figure out, as finely as possible,
“how much money are we going to get in IOUs by the end of this month,”
“how much in cash,”
“how much of the IOUs should we negotiate” (sell the IOUs to banks, at a small % loss),
“how much of our theoretical cash should we have in CD-type things,”
and even “can we get a CD for our cash at N% and a loan for the money we need at n%, where in case anybody wasn’t paying attention N>n?”
The ideal (if scary when it actually happened) situation would be to have at hand exactly as much “cash” (actually money to be e-transferred to employees or turned into IOUs for suppliers) as needed, any “extra” should be loaned out. And if you could get those N% CDs and the n% loans… you did pay the salaries and IOUs from loans.
Now picture that they’d gotten a 3-month N% deposit and had a n% rolling loan. They’d put money from their debtors into paying the loan at the start of the month, then ask for the new amount needed at the end of the month, pay it again. If now the bank suddenly says “rolling loan cancelled” there isn’t any ‘cash’ on hand to pay! Not because the company doesn’t have assets, but because they’re in the deposit.
Well, they got their money, and good for them. No matter if the company was wrong or the bank was wrong or who, the workers were victims here and deserved what was coming to them. If they hadn’t taken over the factory, they almost certainly wouldn’t have gotten a cent, so, hooray for having the balls.
The Reader had an interesting article talking about the 10 Million that the City gave Republic in return for keeping 610 people on their payroll until 2019.
This sun times article has a bit more information:
There was no yanking of a line of credit or modifying any loan terms by BoA. It sucks that the owners didn’t pay the workers, but that really had nothing to do with BoA. I’m happy that the workers got the money they deserved, but what they did was wrong. They used some opportunistic politicians to essentially rob BoA of money that they had no right to.
No right to back wages? No right to accrued vacation pay? No right to any of the money they were owed for the work they did?
Horsehockey. They got what they deserved. I’d like to say I’m sorry your delicate free-market sensibilities are offended by their victory, but I’d be lying because it’s those same free-market sensibilities that almost left them hanging in the first place. I shed no tears for the dented pocketbooks of BoA because if they’d had their way, those workers would have had a lousy Christmas just to start with.
Of course they have a right to that money, but they don’t have a right to take it out of my pocket.
It has nothing to do with free-market sensibilities. It has everything to do with basic values of right and wrong. One of those basic values is that it is wrong to take money that doesn’t belong to you. That’s what it boils down to. BoA had no moral or legal obligation to these workers, and it was wrong that they were coerced into paying up.
It’s also wrong to cheat hard-working people out of their wages and benefits. BoA execs aren’t risking not having food on the table as a result of Republic pulling up stakes and heading to Iowa. Which wrong outweighs the other?
I get that you don’t see it the same way. I understand you’re looking at it from the perspective of Ebenezer Scrooge (and I say that in all seriousness) rather than the Good Samaritan. And I think you’re completely wrong.
It is possible to think that more than one party is wrong in this situation. The execs were wrong to cheat the workers out of their wages. The workers were wrong to coerce an innocent 3rd party into paying them. It’s a cliche, but two wrongs don’t make a right. The workers aren’t justified in wronging BoA because Republic wronged them.
I don’t recall the Good Samaritan robbing another traveler in the story. What message are you trying to send here? That if you are wronged, it’s ok to take money from a 3rd party to make up for it? Only, of course, if that 3rd party happens to be a faceless corporation.
BoA funded Republic and were therefore just as responsible for getting the workers their wages as Republic was. In fact they were more involved in the workers’ lives than the Samaritan was in the life of the victim he found. So they weren’t ‘innocent’, as you claim. You’d have a stronger point if the workers demanded those funds from Citibank or Wachovia, who had nothing to do with extending credit to Republic, but that’s not the case here. BoA’s credit ensured Republic stayed open and the workers had jobs, so they had just as much responsibility towards those workers as Republic did. In fact their denial of credit to Republic was a factor in precipitating this crisis over which the workers had no control (until they took over the factory), so it cannot be claimed that BoA was an innocent third party in this matter. The workers didn’t rob BoA, but if BoA hadn’t provided the funding demanded, they certainly would have robbed the workers.
No, I expect BoA not to get away with saying “Tough shit, Jack” when their actions cause a company to pull up stakes and leave its former employees literally out in the cold.