Chicago CVS Worker Kills Shoplifter Over Toothpaste, While Cop Watches

Now that's a weird headline. Here's a blurb from the Findlaw article:

The Chicago police and CVS Pharmacies are under fire after a CVS manager chased a shoplifter and choked him to death, even as an off-duty sheriff's officer stood on the scene with a loaded handgun drawn at her side. Anthony Kyser, 35, was killed after stealing toothpaste and crayons from a CVS store. The officer shouted "stop resisting," but did not otherwise intervene.

Witness statements indicated that Anthony Kyser cried, "I can't breathe, I can't breathe!" while he was held in a chokehold for several minutes. The Chicago Police have confirmed that a Cook County sheriff's officer was present, however police did not identify the name of the officer or the CVS manager.

The off-duty officer left the scene before uniformed officers arrived, and the medical examiner found that the death was a homicide. Video footage shows the officer holding a gun at the victim, while the CVS worker choked him to death. Still, police have declined to file any charges in the case.

Driving While Gay: Chicago Cop Files Bogus DUI Charges to Earn Extra Money

Chicago cop Richard Fiorito is under investigation by state officials for allegedly filing false DUI charges against drivers -- many of whom are gay and lesbian. Apparently, the bogus arrests were part of a scheme Fiorito devised to earn overtime income. Fiorito arrested innocent drivers for DUI and then earned overtime income when he appeared in court to testify against them.

Fiorito, however, is not the only Chicago cop who has falsely arrested drivers for DUI. Two other police officers have faced similar allegations, and Cook County prosecutors have already dropped 50 DUI cases and charged John Haleas, the arresting officer, with perjury. Although Fiorito faces numerous lawsuits for his behavior, prosecutors have not filed a criminal complaint against him.

Ironically, while Chicago cops are falsely arresting people, Anita Alvarez, the Cook County District Attorney, has pursued a campaign of harassment against Northwestern University's Medill Innocence Project. Dissenting Justice has covered this issue extensively. See Shameful and Pathetic Tactics by Illinois Prosecutors: Attacking "Innocent" Students; Cook County Prosecutors Launch Full Smear Campaign Against Innocence Project; and Illinois Prosecutors, Take Notice: Innocent Man Released After 12 Years in Prison.

The Medill project investigates claims of innocence made by Illinois inmates. The diligence of Medill students has secured the release of eleven inmates during the project's ten-year history.

Alvarez, however, believes that students in the project are dishonest and could have received higher grades by convincing witnesses to support the inmates' claims of innocence. With Chicago cops arresting innocent drivers, Alvarez clearly has flawed priorities.

No Go on Chicago: Olympic Committee Denies US 2016 Bid

The New York Times reports that the International Olympic Committee has denied the United States bid to host the 2016 Summer Olympics. Madrid and Rio de Janeiro await the final decision.

See full coverage here: Chicago Loses Bid for 2016 Olympic Games.

The United States bid has received a lot of attention -- mainly because President Obama has put his weight behind his country and his hometown and because conservatives -- contradicting their usual "patriotism" -- have blasted the idea of having the games in Chicago/USA.

Former Owner of Republic Windows Shutting Down Another Company, Laying Off 100 Workers!

If you dig deeply on the Internet, you might find coverage of a fascinating development in the Republic Windows and Doors saga. Richard Gillman, the former owner of the now bankrupt company recently announced that he is shutting down Echo Windows and Doors, an Iowa company he purchased after dumping his Chicago workforce. The plant closure will cost 100 workers their jobs.

Orthodox Narrative: Bank = Evil
While the ratings-hungry media, opportunistic politicians, and orthodox liberals bashed Bank of America for the plight of the workers at Republic Windows and Doors, I tried to push their criticism towards a more logical direction: Richard Gillman, the company's owner. Federal and state law require employers to provide notice of shut downs or massive layoffs, and employers are liable for paying the workers during the notice period. These laws, however, do not extend liability to an employer's creditors for satisfying these obligations. So when liberals blamed Bank of America and the bailout for the workers' unfortunate plight, their criticism was misdirected.

Progressives, however, argued that because Bank of America, one of the company's creditors, received TARP assistance, it must extend credit to the company regardless of its ability to repay the debt. The concerted effort to demonize Bank of America obscured the employer's liability to pay the workers. It also prevented substantial coverage of more ominous actions taken by the company -- namely, that after firing the Chicago workers, the company's owner executed a plan to purchase a similar company in Iowa with a nonunionized work force and a lower cost structure. The employer then skipped town, leaving behind its workforce without their legally mandated salary and benefits.

The company also left the City of Chicago despite the fact that it had received almost $10 million dollars in subsidies from the city a few years prior to the layoffs. The city hoped that increased tax revenue would ultimately pay for its investment in the company's expansion of its facilities. Alas, this will not happen.

Republic Windows Owner Brings Lay Offs to Iowa
Republic Windows is now in bankruptcy, but yesterday its former owner Richard Gillman announced more startling news: He is shutting down Echo Windows and Doors, his newly acquired Iowa factory, and laying off its 100 workers. A manager at the plant blames Gillman for the deterioration of the company:

Back in Iowa, plant manager Dwayne Adams criticized the ownership's operation.

"They … basically ran it into the ground, the way we see it," Adams said.

If the company can get an investor to pump $650,000 in financing, management predicts that it can stay afloat. Where's the angry anti-bank crowd today? On to more sensational issues, I suppose.

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

MADE IN IOWA: Did Company in Chicago Sit-In Illegally Discard Its Workers and Quietly Relocate While Liberals Forced BOA to Pay for the Shady Scheme?

Republic Windows and Doors Received a Bailout from Chicago Before It Bailed Out of Chicago

Laid-Off Republic Windows and Doors Workers: Pawns in Political Football

"Scratching and Surviving" Less Newsworthy Than Politicians at Labor Protests: Scant Media Coverage of Republic Windows Workers After Sit-In

Factory Closes in Chicago; Workers Invoke Bailout During Protest

What (I Think) Progressives Should Have Done for Workers of Republic Windows and Doors

New Chapter for Republic Windows: Bankruptcy

Workers of Republic Windows and Doors Finally Pursue the Culpable Party: Their Employer

Happy Ending? Potential Buyer for Republic Windows and Doors

The New York Times reports that Serious Materials, a California company, might purchase Republic Windows and Doors and keep its workers employed. The owners of Republic Windows purchased an Iowa company that engages in the same line of business. The owners also admitted moving to Iowa so that they could continue operating at a cheaper cost. It is unclear how much of the Chicago-related work was transferred to Iowa. But if the deal works, this could help the workers tremendously.

I have analyzed many of the issues presented in this case both during and after the workers' sit-in. Recently, the workers filed a claim against the company with the National Labor Relations Board, asserting several labor law violations. This transaction would undoubtedly include some type of settlement of the workers' grievances. Interestingly, the struggle to find permanent work or assistance for the workers has not generated extensive media coverage or commentary from progressives. Well, if you read the blog, you know what I think about them.

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

MADE IN IOWA: Did Company in Chicago Sit-In Illegally Discard Its Workers and Quietly Relocate While Liberals Forced BOA to Pay for the Shady Scheme?

Republic Windows and Doors Received a Bailout from Chicago Before It Bailed Out of Chicago

Laid-Off Republic Windows and Doors Workers: Pawns in Political Football

"Scratching and Surviving" Less Newsworthy Than Politicians at Labor Protests: Scant Media Coverage of Republic Windows Workers After Sit-In

Factory Closes in Chicago; Workers Invoke Bailout During Protest

What (I Think) Progressives Should Have Done for Workers of Republic Windows and Doors

New Chapter for Republic Windows: Bankruptcy

Workers of Republic Windows and Doors Finally Pursue the Culpable Party: Their Employer

Workers of Republic Windows and Doors Finally Pursue the Culpable Party: Their Employer

Workers for Republic Windows and Doors have finally asserted legal claims against the only entity that violated their rights: the company itself. In early December, the workers staged a sit-in after the company ceased operations without providing them legally required notice. Although the slumping housing market caused the business to suffer deep financial losses, politicians, the company's management and the protesting workers blamed Bank of America for the shutdown. After the company exhausted its credit line, Bank of America refused to extend additional financing.

Progressive advocacy, negative media attention, and a ruthless (if not illegal) order by Governor Blagojevich (which barred Bank of America from conducting business with the State of Illinois) helped the workers secure the value of their unpaid wages and benefits from Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase, rather than the company. A month after their protests, however, the workers have filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board which argues that the company (1) violated federal law by failing to provide adequate notice concerning the shutdown and (2) breached the terms of their collective bargaining agreement by relocating to Iowa without giving them a good faith opportunity to negotiate.

I doubt they can recover under the first theory because they already received payment from Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase. I have no idea how a "remedy" under the second claim would look. The workers seek to have property and equipment returned to the factory, but this seems far fetched. Also, because the company has now entered the bankruptcy process, recovering anything from it looks bleak. In order to recover anything at this point, the workers need to demonstrate that the new company is simply the old one with a new name.

But I have always suspected that the owners of Republic Windows and Doors have powerful friends in Illinois who helped to shield them from criticism. The company received almost $10 million in subsidies from the City of Chicago, and Mayor Daley reportedly lobbied for them to obtain the funds. To date, Bank of America, not the company, remains the villain to most of the public. Today, Chicago papers report that the city cannot recoup the value of the subsidies from Republic Windows.

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

MADE IN IOWA: Did Company in Chicago Sit-In Illegally Discard Its Workers and Quietly Relocate While Liberals Forced BOA to Pay for the Shady Scheme?

Republic Windows and Doors Received a Bailout from Chicago Before It Bailed Out of Chicago

Laid-Off Republic Windows and Doors Workers: Pawns in Political Football

"Scratching and Surviving" Less Newsworthy Than Politicians at Labor Protests: Scant Media Coverage of Republic Windows Workers After Sit-In

Factory Closes in Chicago; Workers Invoke Bailout During Protest

What (I Think) Progressives Should Have Done for Workers of Republic Windows and Doors

New Chapter for Republic Windows: Bankruptcy

What a Difference a Day Makes: Obama and Reid On Board With Burris Appointment

As I expected, the Democrats are backing down from their unnecessarily rigid position with respect to Roland Burris. The political trouble surrounding Bill Richardson served as a wake-up call to Democrats, who seemed to forget that taking a zero-tolerance attitude toward unproven allegations of ethical or legal violations does not promote the party's interests -- even if it helped Obama and Reid prevent Blagojevich from appointing someone other than their preferred candidate to the Senate. [Editor's Note: The widespread opposition among constitutional law scholars to their plan to reject any candidate Blagojevich appointed probably factored into the decision as well. Or perhaps that is just wishful thinking on my part.]

So, on the same day that Richardson dropped out of the Cabinet process, Reid began to soften his rhetoric on Burris. And yesterday, the signs became even warmer after Senator Diane Feinstein publicly blasted Democrats for failing to sit Burris. Feinstein, who is an outgoing member of the credentials committee, has a powerful voice on the subject of receiving members to the Senate. At that point, the writing was on the wall.

Today, Reid sounds like the careful and flexible seeker of "equal justice" that he was during the Clinton impeachment. After meeting with Burris this morning, Reid made the following statement:

Roland Burris, to me, appears to be candid and forthright. Without any hesitation, he prepared an affidavit that the impeachment committee for the Illinois state assembly already has, and he's going to go answer any other questions they might have.

"He's not trying to avoid any responsibility and trying to hide anything . . . .

Reid also suggested that the issue of seating Burris depends only upon the signing of his commission by the rebellious Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, who has claimed discretion to veto Governor Blagojevich by refusing to perform a ministerial act required by law. And while many sources believed that the Senate would try to drag out this matter until Blagojevich was removed from office (or convicted), Reid has indicated that he wants a quick resolution of the issue:

There's going to come a time when the entire Senate is going to have to act on this . . . .And that day, I hope, would come sooner rather than later.

Obama Tones Down His Rhetoric as Well
Senator Obama has also moderated his stance on Burris. Obama, who had previously called for Blagojevich to resign and who disagreed with the seating of any appointment he made, has struck a conciliatory tone:

[I] know Roland Burris. Obviously, I've -- he's from my home state. I think he's a fine public servant. If he gets seated, then I'm going to work with Roland Burris, just like I work with all the other senators, to make sure that the people of Illinois and the people of the country are served.

My take: Once the Democrats realized that their hard line against Blagojevich and their broad and amorphous taint argument could imperil other Democrats (like Richardson), they had to retreat. But they could not retreat by softening their opposition to Blagojevich; otherwise, he would look victorious.

Their only way out of this mess was through Burris. If they could legitimize his appointment -- rather than portraying it as tainted -- then they could come away looking as if they made a righteous decision. This is precisely why Obama, Reid, and other Democrats now glowingly describe Burris as ethical and honest. They are trying to distinguish him from Blagojevich and create a narrative which portrays their dramatic retreat (or loss) on the issue as the acceptance of a fine candidate after an investigation of his background and his appointment, rather than capitulation to a corrupt and unpopular governor.

The only question that remains: Will a top Democrat now call Jesse White and tell him to end his silly protest or will Democrats force the Illinois Supreme Court to decide this bothersome matter?

Update: Huffington Post reports that Obama gave the marching orders to seat Burris. This confirms my initial belief that he also gave the initial order NOT to seat Burris. Obama offered statements condemning Blagojevich after the arrest and insisting that he should step down and refrain from filling the Senate seat. He also condemned the appointment of Burris. Today, he offered praise for Burris. This conduct is odd for someone who has no stake in the outcome. Also, recall Obama's role in getting the Democrats to reconcile with Lieberman, although many of them wanted to oust him from seniority on certain committees. The Senate-Obama honeymoon remains in full effect. But one has to wonder whether any damage was done, especially with Reid, who comes out of this situation looking pretty weak.

Update Number 2: In my original post, I speculated that the Senate would attempt to clean up this mess by explaining their objection to Burris as a desire to "investigate" his background and appointment and avoid looking as if they loss to Blagojevich. Well, it did not take too long to confirm this, via statements from Senators Durbin and Reid:

[Durbin:]I think it was important that the United States Senate say — and we did, as a Democratic caucus unanimously — that we were going to carefully scrutinize and review the process by which this Senate seat would be filled if Governor Blagojevich was involved, and that's what happened.

[Reid:]People ask a lot of times why we have to do various things procedurally here in the Senate. It's because we're the Senate; that's how we operate.

Ok. So your objection to "anyone" that Blagojevich appointed was merely a procedural concern that you could wrap up in less than one week? Why didn't you say that in the first place?

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

A Harry Reid Flip-Flop? Comparing His Views on Bill Clinton and Rod Blagojevich

Feinstein Smacks Down Reid and Fellow Democrats Regarding Burris

Joe Lieberman and Rick Warren In, Roland Burris Out: No "Place at the Table" for Senior, Loyal Democrat

On Day That Bill Richardson Announces Withdrawal Harry Reid Softens Rhetoric on Burris

Will Bill Richardson's Case Lead to a Softening of the Rhetoric of "Taint"?

Patrick Buchanan Shows Greater Commitment to Liberal Values Than Senate Democrats, Defends Roland Burris

So When Exactly Does "Change" Arrive? Senate Battle Over Burris and Blagojevich Offers "More of the Same"!

Do Nepotism, Wealth and Dynastic Power "Taint" Kennedy's Likely Senate Appointment? Taking Reid's Arguments Where He Wouldn't Want Them to Go

Some Media Outlets Begin "Palinizing" Roland Burris

On Day That Bill Richardson Announces Withdrawal Harry Reid Softens Rhetoric on Burris

Defiant Blagojevich Names Obama's Successor: Decision Raises Political and Constitutional Questions

Like It or Not, Democracy Prevails: Illinois Supreme Court Refuses to Declare Blagojevich Unfit to Serve

Blago Impeachment: What Would Lincoln Do?

Playing or Paying Politics: Blagojevich, Political DealMaking, and the Difficulty of Drawing Lines

Oh, Please! Owner of Republic Windows and Doors Plays Victim Card, Denies "Union Dumping"

Richard Gellman (previous reports listed his last name as "Gillman"), the owner of Republic Windows and Doors has come forward to blame Bank of America (again) for the company's demise. Gellman alleges that earlier this year Bank of America decided to "liquidate" the company even though he had lined up investors to finance a cash purchase of an Ohio company. This purchase, according to Gellman, would have allowed Republic Windows and Doors to earn a $3.5 million profit.

Of course, Gellman's latest "victim impact statement" does not disclose the terms of this alleged cash infusion and how it would have affected the company's ability to service its debt with Bank of America. Instead, he just blames the bank for the company's failure. But if the company was already having trouble paying Bank of America, the bank probably had legitimate concerns with the introduction of new creditors and a potentially risky investment. A reasonable creditor could consider an investment on the higher side of risk if it were the sole plan the debtor offered to generate a profit and pay its bills. Divorced from preexisting emotions concerning bailouts and banks, the emerging facts still indicate that the company was on the skids and that Bank of America made a rational banking decision.

Gellman also provides new dirt for analysis: The employees in the Iowa company are not unionized. Basically, Gellman has discarded his unionized workforce in Chicago, quietly opened a new company in Iowa that conducts the same business, used big Chicago politicos to shame Bank of America into paying Republic's labor obligations, and will now run a cheaper business with a nonunionized workforce. Progressives, however, continue to center their analysis and criticism on Bank of America.

Gellman denies being a union-dumper, however, and he says that the union issue did not influence his decision to move to Iowa. Gellman, on the other hand, does confirm an argument I have made in previous blog entries. He says that the relatively cheaper cost of operating the business in Iowa versus Chicago indeed impacted the decision to relocate. So the drama continues. Personally, I find Gellman about as credible a figure as Blagojevich.

Source: Chicago Sun-Times

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

* MADE IN IOWA: Did Company in Chicago Sit-In Illegally Discard Its Workers and Quietly Relocate While Liberals Forced BOA to Pay for the Shady Scheme?

* Republic Windows and Doors Received a Bailout from Chicago Before It Bailed Out of Chicago

* Laid-Off Republic Windows and Doors Workers: Pawns in Political Football

* Factory Closes in Chicago; Workers Invoke Bailout During Protest

* What (I Think) Progressives Should Have Done for Workers of Republic Windows and Doors

MADE IN IOWA: Did Company in Chicago Sit-In Illegally Discard Its Workers and Quietly Relocate While Liberals Forced BOA to Pay for the Shady Scheme?

[Recent update: Former Owner of Republic Windows Shutting Down Another Company, Laying Off 100 Workers!]

[Warning: Surrealism Alert!]

In a move likely designed to protect its public relations image, Bank of America has reversed course and agreed to extend a "limited amount of additional loans" to Republic Windows and Doors, according to CBS News. On Monday, the bank released an official statement explaining that it canceled the company's line of credit because its revenue had declined substantially. The company manufactures products for new home construction and renovation. The national housing market has declined sharply over the last year, and many related industries, including building suppliers, have suffered.

The additional credit will provide sufficient funds to prevent a "WARN Act" violation by the company. Under federal and state versions of that law, employers must provide advanced notice to workers of mass layoffs or a complete shutdown. If they fail to give notice, they can avoid a violation by paying workers the amount of wages and benefits they would have earned during the statutory notice period. Illinois law provides for 75-days notice. The employees' union will enforce this provision because the federal law has a shorter notice period (and it does not preempt state law). But some pretty sinister facts concerning this situation are now emerging within independent media.

Ongoing Issues and Misunderstanding

Shameful Political Football
Although I am thrilled that the workers will receive compensation and benefits to which they are legally entitled, the political circus surrounding the case troubles me. One day before his federal indictment, Governor Rod Blagojevich singlehandedly barred Bank of America from transacting business with the state. He made this decision without any public deliberation, and it remains unclear whether state law even authorizes him to penalize the bank. Furthermore, given the nature of the allegations against him and the preliminary content of the evidence, investigators should probably examine whether Blagojevich had more than political interests at stake when he acted so forcefully against Bank of America. [Editor: Make sure to read the "Juicy Part" below.]

Employer Violated the Law, Not Bank of America
A lot of commentary on this subject misstates the relevant legal issues. Employers, not their creditors, have a legal obligation to provide notice of a shutdown or layoff and to continue paying workers during the notice period. Nothing in the bailout legislation requires Bank of America (or similarly situated banks) to offer "credit on demand." Many people argued that Bank of America should extend additional credit to the company despite its declining financial status. But grotesque lending practices led to the recession; these same practices will not lead us out of it.

Bank = Bad; Factory = Good (Or So You Believe)
Most liberals despise banks, and this preexisting viewpoint informed their portrayal of Bank of America. By contrast, liberal commentary portrayed Republic Windows and Doors in extremely favorable terms. Of course, the workers received the most sympathetic commentary of all, but I expected to see more liberals scrutinize the company, given that it, not the bank, violated the statutory rights of its workers.

Interestingly, while many liberals and progressives have argued that the country should just let banks die, they ignore the reality that banks employ many working-class people. Secretaries, janitors, messengers, mail-room staff, and other low- and unskilled workers have jobs in large banks. They are invisible because liberals associate banks with wealthy professionals. By contrast, they fail to acknowledge that manufacturers, including Republic Windows and Doors, employ elite corporate and managerial staff.

The same reasons that liberals and progressives offer for demonizing banks apply to other businesses, including Republic Windows and Doors. Corporate managers run other companies. Many of them help generate enormous profits for the companies they manage, and a good number of them earn very high salaries. They will often place corporate and management interests above the concerns of labor. Just like banks, Republic Windows and Doors profited, in part, from reckless and irrational behavior in the housing market. Now that the market is strongly correcting itself, the company faces liquidity and demand problems.

"Made in Iowa" [Juicy Part]
While liberals, progressives and the media spewed endlessly about the horrors of Bank of America, Republic Windows and Doors quietly completed transactions that would keep its owners' profit stream alive, but which would cost hundreds of workers their livelihoods. If the Left had refused to follow a kneejerk anti-bank, anti-bailout narrative and instead remained open to dissent and new ideas, it could have possibly discovered some interesting and crucial information about the owner and management of the company formerly known as Republic Windows and Doors. These allegations appear in an article published by The Chi Town Daily News, a independent Chicago newspaper (kudos to the blog Caffeinated Politics for providing this source). Apparently, the company has chosen to discard its Chicago-based workers, relocate to a less-expensive state, and combine its operations with a similar company that is also experiencing a downturn in business.

Here are some juicy tidbits from the article:

* Echo Windows and Doors, an Iowa company, was incorporated just over two weeks ago. As the name suggests, it makes the same products that Republic Windows and Doors used to make

* Sharon Gillman manages Echo Windows and Doors. She is also the wife of Robert Gillman, who owns Republic Windows and Doors.

* The former marketing director of Republic Windows and Doors is now listed as the contact person for Echo Windows and Doors on the company's website.

* TRACO was the predecessor to Echo Windows and Doors. Recently, TRACO scaled down its production due to declining demand for its products. Shortly after Echo Windows and Doors purchased TRACO production at the Iowa plant returned to normal levels.

* Finally, just for kicks, the Gillmans bought $2.6 million condominium in 2007. The condominium is located in the very exclusive "Oak Street" neighborhood of Chicago, according to state records.

If the facts in this article are true, then the owners of Republic Windows and Doors decided to relocate to a cheaper location, combine their sluggish business with another company experiencing a downturn, and eliminate its Chicago workers -- without giving them the required "heads up." This is precisely the kind of corporate behavior that led to the passage of the federal WARN Act (and subsequent state versions). Accordingly, the critical public discourse should have centered upon Republic Windows and Doors, not Bank of America.

The most disturbing aspect of this situation (if this article proves accurate), is that Republic Windows and Doors can now finance its own blatant disregard of federal and state law and operate a new business with completely different workers because progressives used their political muscle to shame Bank of America into lending the company more money. The company has already purchased the Iowa business, but it probably could not afford to pay benefits and wages to its Iowa and Illinois workers simultaneously. No problem. Liberal defenders of labor lobbied and complained until the big bad bank extended additional credit to the company, which allows it to complete its relocation, sudden shutdown, and merger without incurring legal liability.

For all of their advocacy, I hope Illinois politicians got something out of this, other than a loss of tax revenue. Well, I guess I had better retract that comment, in light of recent developments concerning Governor Blagojevich. Given the allegations against him and his unusual move against Bank of America, perhaps the state should investigate whether he had the authority to make this decision and, if so, whether he abused his discretion.

Progressives Should Use This "Good Old-Fashioned Recession" to Lobby for Change
One reader of Dissenting Justice recently argued that the Chicago situation should remind us what a "good old-fashioned recession" means. That language might sound harsh, but recessions are not warm and fuzzy events. Workers suffer. Businesses fail. A good number of banks, mortgage lenders, realtors, and housing-related companies have already collapsed, merged with others, or are trying to restructure their debt. Thousands of workers in these fields have lost their jobs and benefits and have few prospects for alternative employment.

Instead of bashing the bailout for not providing enough quick relief for workers, liberals and progressives should demand direct governmental intervention for dislocated workers and struggling individuals and families. President-elect Obama has announced a plan to create 2.5 million jobs through infrastructure development and energy conservation efforts. Even assuming the accuracy of this figure, that plan remains a longterm project. Workers, like those protesting in Chicago, need immediate relief. This opens up messy debates about welfare, individual responsibility, and the role of government. But the corporate interventions can serve as precedent for expanding social welfare programs for distressed individuals.

During the campaign, most of the candidates limited their discussion of direct economic relief for the "middle-class" to mortgage assistance and tax cuts. But mortgage assistance does absolutely nothing for most of the working poor, who rent rather than own. Obama's proposal to suspend temporarily the taxation of unemployment benefits promises some relief for struggling individuals.

Nevertheless, unless the country strengthens its economic "safety net," then the conditions of poor and working class people will only deteriorate. Take the situation of the Chicago workers, for example. Once they exhaust 75-days of wages and benefits, most of them will likely remain unemployed, lack health insurance (unless they can pay the premiums without an employer subsidy), and face difficulty finding new jobs. So while liberals and progressives may have successfully smacked down Bank of America, they did nothing to ensure the longterm stability of the very people they claim to represent. Worst of all, they may have unwittingly helped a company finance what would have been an illegal decision to discard its workers without notice. Perhaps this situation will inspire progressives to start thinking critically about our world. If I have wrongfully jumped the gun on this story, then I will seek your forgiveness.

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

* Republic Windows and Doors Received a Bailout from Chicago Before It Bailed Out of Chicago

* Laid-Off Republic Windows and Doors Workers: Pawns in Political Football

Update: On the same day that the Chi Town News released its article, the Chicago Tribune covered the apparent Iowa relocation in a broader story on the protests.

Factory Closes in Chicago; Workers Invoke Bailout During Protest

Republic Windows and Doors closed its Chicago-based factory without giving workers the 60-days notice that federal law requires, according to a spokesperson for United Electrical Workers, which represents employees. A similar state law provision requires that workers receive 75-days notice.

The plant closing is both a sign of the vanishing United States manufacturing sector and the recent economic downturn. The company, which sells windows for use in home construction, has suffered tremendously due to the sluggish economic conditions, which are even bleaker in the housing market.

Employees, however, have decided to engage in creative protest. Since last Friday, they have occupied the factory and say they will remain inside unless the company promises severance and vacation pay. Employees also invoked the Wall Street bailout in their protests. Bank of America, a creditor of Republic Windows and Doors, canceled the company's line of credit, which apparently prevents it from paying workers. Employees used the situation to politicize the disparate levels of federal relief that financial institutions have received relative to manufacturing and other commercial sectors:

"Across cultures, religions, union and nonunion, we all say this bailout was a
shame," said Richard Berg, president of Teamsters Local 743. "If this bailout
should go to anything, it should go to the workers of this country."

Outside the plant, protesters wore stickers and carried signs that said,
"You got bailed out, we got sold out."

I think the workers made a great decision to bring the disparate treatment of "Main Street" and "Wall Street" to the table. Both parties and presidential candidates made decisions that favored monied interests. None can claim innocence.

Legal Issues: It is difficult to analyze legal issues from media accounts of this situation, particularly because the reports only present the opinion of the union. Furthermore, I have not located any analysis from labor law experts on this subject.

While the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act requires companies with over 100 full-time employees to provide notice to workers 60 prior to a shutdown or mass layoffs, it contains a couple of exceptions that could operate in this situation. The law does not require notification when a shutdown or mass layoff results from "unforeseeable business circumstances" that preclude timely notice. It also does not require notice from a "faltering company," when announcing a shutdown could hinder the company from seeking financing which would keep the business running.

The Illinois law on this issue contains similar exceptions. The media reports, however, do not permit a determination regarding the potential applicability of these exceptions.

Related reading: Dodd's Discriminatory Bailout: "Regime Change" for Main Street, But Not for Wall Street?