I missed the entire Republic Windows & Doors strike. [h/t Instapundit]. The laid-off workers apper to think they have a right to shake down the bankrupt company’s creditors in order to get their severance pay. It seems that Bank of America, by virtue of receiving the company’s physical assets as a result of its default, is now responsible for its workers.
Many people do not seem to have the idea that employers and employees are social equals in an economic partnership, but instead view employers as social superiors morally obligated to look after the welfare of their inferior employees. By virtue of giving someone a job, you acquire a feudal responsibility to look out for them for the rest of their lives.
[Note: There may be more to the story than the media, trapped as it is in their “heroic strikers” narrative, are willing to tell us. Anybody with more info please chime in.]
Here is the money quote in the linked article:
“Many workers who participated in the Republic sit-in, including Caceres, feared they would fall behind on their mortgages and even lose their houses if they didn’t get the money they said they were due.”
So they were on week to week, month to month to meet their mortgage payment? Nothing put away for a rainy day or emergency such as LOSING YOUR JOB? Perhaps, just perhaps could Mr. or Mrs. Caceres be living beyond their means?
Just once I would love to get the real story behind Mr. or Mrs. “Caceres” to see how they live, what they spend money on, etc.
Then again, I was taught when growing up that the world owed me nothing, and I was to save a LOT of money for emergencies – so I did, and still do.
Not sure what you mean when you chatter on about liege lords. The matter is fairly simple. There was a legal contractual understanding between the company and its workers. Now you may not like the agreement, but it was a legal one, made and agreed upon but subsequently broken by the company to serve what it considered its own interests at the expense of the workers.
Don’t you accept or believe in legal agreements?
It occurs to me that a business going through about to go under might be bought by union members. Curious, I Goggled “union bought businesses”. It must be a rare event.
I believe there was no legal contractual understanding between the comapny and its workers. There was the imposition of a duty (the WARN Act) by a third party (the government) without the consent of one party (the company).
And, Mr. Butts, do you believe in imposing the obligations of agreements on persons who are not parties to the agreement? Becaus that’s what the banks are, innocent third parties who are being shaken down by union thugs and their co-conspirators in the press.
Harold P. Butts III,
There was a legal contractual understanding between the company and its workers.
Nothing in any of the stories I read suggested the company had violated a contract. If they had a legal contract, why did they seize the companies building to enforce their demands. Why not just sue or stand in line with the other creditors?
Even if they had a contract with the company, what right did they have to shake down the bank? The bank had already loan the company money, keeping people in their jobs longer. Why shake them down further?
Yeah, its rough when a company fails suddenly. I know, I’ve seen it happen to a lot of small business people and freelancers. Nobody cries for those people when they lose their livelihoods.
My understanding is that Bank of America calling loans after receiving $25 billion of taxpayer money, purportedly for the purpose of “keeping credit flowing,” is what led to the plant closure. If banks don’t want to be shaken down, maybe the bankers shouldn’t have shaken down the taxpayers. What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander. It certainly would have been best if we hadn’t gone down that path in the first place, but once we set down a path of allocating resources by political pull, it’s a little late to get morality.
Tom Hanna,
My understanding is that Bank of America calling loans after receiving $25 billion of taxpayer money, purportedly for the purpose of “keeping credit flowing,” is what led to the plant closure.
Keeping the banks solvent doesn’t translate into extending credit to every enterprise no matter how credit unworthy. The company was on the ropes and poor risk. Why should Bank of America poor good money after bad? After all, that is how we got into this mess in the first place.
The bailout isn’t there to encourage more risking lending. It is there to make the banks legally solvent so that they can legally make good loans.