Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Bank of America's Greed Sparked the Eye-Opening Worker's Strike in Chicago

By John Woodruff Jr., Portside. Posted December 9, 2008.


The bank took $25 billion of taxpayers' cash, but wouldn't lend Republic Windows and Doors the money it needed to keep going.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by John Woodruff Jr.

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The following is written by a field organizer for the union involved in the sitdown strike at a Chicago factory:

It seems like forever now that we have been hearing about the importance of the Wall Street "bailout", and how that was the only way that we as taxpayers could avoid an even worse financial crisis in the U.S. The idea was that if we gave the big banks and credit markets access to about $700 billion dollars (or so), they would in turn help small businesses to keep operating and keep U.S. workers employed.

At least that's what I thought it was supposed to be about.

Tell that to the 300 United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) members that, up until this past Friday, had jobs at Republic Windows and Doors in Chicago.

Bank of America, our country's second largest bank, did indeed take $25 billion dollars of "bailout cash", then gave the shaft to that company and its workers by refusing to renew and extend it any operating credit to stay in business through the economic downturn. Just close the doors and throw the workers out onto the street without any notice in freezing temperatures right before the holidays, Bank of America said, and don't bother paying them any vacation or severance pay either. Oh, and just cancel everyone's health insurance while you're at it. Sorry about those pregnant workers, too.

Well, these UE members decided they were NOT going to be put out into the streets like animals, and they would just take over the factory until they got what they had coming to them. This is just simple fairness and self-preservation, but what is happening in Chicago needs to be talked about and actively supported by all working people in this country . Because you are next. We are all next, if we let Bank of America take our money and use it to fatten their profit margin and bottom line instead of what it was supposed to be used for: Helping regular hard working Americans like the sisters and brothers at Republic.

Ron Bender, a UE member and 14-year machine operator at Republic said it best . "We're doing this for the other working people in the country. What's happened to us can happen to anyone -- they could just close up and put you out and give you no severance pay."

***

The following story is from UE’s site: Chicago Aldermen Aim to End City's Business with Bank of America

A contingent of 15 Chicago aldermen said today they will introduce an ordinance to require the city to stop doing any business with the Bank of America.

Bank of America cut off its line of credit to Republic Windows and Doors, causing the Chicago company to halt operations on Friday, December 5 and terminate its 250 workers with only three days notice, and without receiving their earned vacation pay, as well as compensation they are entitled to under the WARN Act. The workers' situation attracted world-wide attention begining Friday evening, when they began occupying the plant, refusing to leave until Bank of America, the company and other creditors honor their obligations to employees. 'Outrageous, Unfair and Arrogant'


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: chicago, bank of america, ue, sitdown strike

John Woodruff Jr., is a UE Field Organizer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
and for a change
Posted by: judeqfe on Dec 9, 2008 12:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is vocally supporting the workers and the boycott. THAT is change!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Liam on the Left Posted by: Liam
Wait Just A Minute...
Posted by: NoPCZone on Dec 9, 2008 1:09 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, the funds put into the banks were to provide liquidity for credit-worthy borrowers- not just every Tom, Dick and Harry that comes along.I don't know about where you live, but nobody is remodeling houses or building new ones because the market is flooded. If the market is dried up the company is NOT a good credit risk. Good for Bank of America.

Second, Bank of America only took funds at the insistence of the Treasury AFTER they saved taxpayers $50 Billion by absorbing the essentially illiquid Merrill Lynch and much more by absorbing Countrywide- up to it's neck in non-performing loans. Bank of America wasn't in the dire straits many others were in like Wachovia, CitiBank and others. The taxpayers are ahead with Bank of America right now.

Third. the responsibility to pay out wages and benefits earned is the employer's- not the employer's bank. I could buy GM if Goldman would only loan me a couple of Billion. Does that make Goldman evil or wrong if they turn me down? No.

Fourth, in a city the size of Chicago I am sure any number of banks can be found that would gladly lend to a GOOD CREDIT RISK. If the company isn't a good credit risk, any banker would be negligent in their duties to do so. Business is business- not feel good politics. The company can take it's business anywhere it wants to- BofA just said no and that is their right under the law and the credit agreement.

Fifth, this is the kind of low information scape-goating that gives progressives/liberals a bad name among the rest of the populace. Bank of America has no legal obligation to make a questionable loan to a poor credit risk in a deepening recession nor does any other well run bank. It's exactly this kind of crap that got the sub-prime mess started in the first place.

The Federal program assisting and stabilizing the financial system was not designed as a jobs program, an employment program or a bail out for poorly run or unfortunate businesses. The program was designed to stabilize a rapidly developing worldwide liquidity crisis that could have caused a massive and sharp worldwide depression combines with cascading bank failures that would take good companies down with everyone else.

I feel sorry for the workers done unjustly by their employer, but don't attack their creditors for doing their fiduciary responsibility. If Bank of America or any other bank denies credit on anything other than sound business principles they are open to legal recourse. If the company or it's workers think they have a case they are free to hire counsel and go to court.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wait Just A Minute... Posted by: bouyant
» RE: Wait Just A Minute... Posted by: NoPCZone
» so complicated Posted by: jon B
» RE: so complicated Posted by: adp3d
» RE: so complicated Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Wait Just A Minute... Posted by: adp3d
» RE: Wait Just A Minute... Posted by: bonzi
» Exactly Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: xactly Posted by: master09
» RE: You'll Never Get Through to Them Posted by: winterinthehinterland
Bank of America sucks.
Posted by: phatkhat on Dec 9, 2008 3:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some 10 or 12 years ago, Bank of America sucked up Boatmen's Bank, headquartered in St. Louis. Boatmen's was a very old, respected bank, but, like all smaller banks, subject to being taken over by the big guys.

We had an account at Boatmen's, and were very happy with our service there. We had a personal banking representative who was a very pleasant older woman, and very helpful, and the tellers were knowledgeable and helpful as well.

After the BoA takeover, we hardly recognized our branch. All the older employees were fired, and replaced with very young workers. The courtesy and helpfulness went to hell.

Needless to say, we changed banks in a hurry. I would NEVER do any business with BoA again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Boatmen's Sucked Posted by: NoPCZone
» Blame the DEMOCRATS Posted by: gellero1
» RE: Blame the REPUKES! Posted by: goatini
Banks have lost sight of their reason for Existence
Posted by: opmoc on Dec 9, 2008 3:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Banks do not create any wealth, and it is not their function to gamble or control.

Banks are functionally equivalent to the structure of a reservoir. The bank is merely the hardware. It is not the bank's duty to control the flow of money - like the flow of water.

But the banks have been behaving as if they have got an insane two year old in control of the water flow.

First they open up all the sluices - and flood the valley. Then they totally turn off the flow - and then send the tankers round the entire community sucking out all the water from everywhere they can find it - to fill up their reservoir.

In the process they kill all business, all plant growth, and all the people die of hunger and thirst.

There is no shortage of money. It's still there. The reservoir is full.

You just can't have any.

So DIE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why not...
Posted by: ellie on Dec 9, 2008 5:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
sell the window company down to it's lightbulbs to pay off it's union contract???

what off shore company wants a cheap, established, turn key window factory that will pay it's non union people $.50 per day???

it's the same old story of the '80's and early '90's... offshore anything of worth so folks here can have 5 hour a week jobs at minimum wage asking if you would like fries with your order...

my problem is that the owners of the company didn't look ahead of the next bank loan to cover payroll... if you need a loan to make payroll, your company is already in trouble...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: why not... Posted by: bonzi
welcome to the rest of the world
Posted by: astralman on Dec 9, 2008 5:43 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was done w/ this article after the first paragraph. Union workers being laid off w/o severance pay and losing health insurance benefits. wow. welcome to the rest of the world. if i lose my job in consulting what can i do? collect unemployment and buy a cobra plan. there will be no severance pay or extension of full time benefits.
If you're going to work in a factory making windows you can't expect to get paid the same amount as someone who went to college for 4+ years working a professional job. Paying these people the same wage as professionals or even higher in some instances has resulted in companies failing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Old School Socialist Liberals Posted by: NoPCZone
Wrong Question
Posted by: curiousdwk on Dec 9, 2008 5:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article, and many others, are asking the wrong question. It's asking "What can we expect from Bank of America?" The question should be, "Why isn't the company responsible for closing the plant according to law?" If the company says that it needs money from Bank of America, then we can raise the question of the role of Bank of America. But the company has been quiet on this issue. It isn't saying it is the fault of Bank of America, and until the company says it, we shouldn't either.

But we should be holding the feet of the managers to the fire of appropriate and legal actions for closing a plant. The workers evidently have money to which they are legally entitled to. They are also legally entitled to 60 days notice. etc. Why isn't there a clamor for the company to comply and at least defend its actions (or inactions). Then we can go after Bank of America. But not until then.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» But it does highlight the hypocrisy Posted by: End The Echo
» RE: Wrong Question Posted by: NoPCZone
Good for Them
Posted by: Gravitas on Dec 9, 2008 7:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am proud these workers are from Chicago. I am not going to argue the finer points of who is ultimately to blame or any technicality BofA can pull out of its *ss. It is time the American people stood up for themselves and took back their country. The point is the fought back instead of just accepting it with their tail between their legs. If everyone fought back, the power-elite would not be so powerful after all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Take Back What?????? Posted by: gellero1
B of A
Posted by: Archie1954 on Dec 9, 2008 8:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Based on your logic we might as well shut the whole country down because we have an economic downturn. Surely a good credit risk would be one that has a history of profitability which this one does and therefore the question would be during a downturn will they be able to maintain profitability? Well you will guarantee that they won't if you don't extend their operating line, that's for sure. I believe banks have a duty and responsibility as good corporate citizens of the country to not add to the economic problems by restricting credit to historically credit worthy customers. Such negative activity just insures that the downturn will continue indefinitely.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: B of A Posted by: NoPCZone
» Right, NoPC... Posted by: Vince2
The TARP was a loan
Posted by: IntlDad on Dec 9, 2008 8:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to the banks. And a loan of our money at that.

If the door folks can't repay their loans, and they came to me I don't think I would reach into my pocket and gladly fork over money that could be used elsewhere.

Bank of America is supposed to repay the taxpayers in about five years. If they were to make loans that amounted to gifts we would have no ability to recapture those public dollars down the road.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The TARP was a loan Posted by: NoPCZone
Wow.
Posted by: daniel1982 on Dec 9, 2008 10:43 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We're in the current economic mess because of loans to people who couldn't pay them back.

So here we have a bank acting responsibly in declining a loan to a failing company, and what's happening? Government (Governor of Illinois, and President-elect) putting pressure on the bank to make a, what everyone agrees, is a bad loan!

The people who are criticizing Bank of America, are insane. We just had a economic meltdown caused by this same kind of behavior. This would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wow. Posted by: 2thepoint
» Idiotic Posted by: gellero1
blame GRAMM and REPUKES
Posted by: goatini on Dec 9, 2008 12:22 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the deregulation of which you falsely accuse WJC happened under the Repukes Congress "Contract On America", and specifically corrupt d!ckhead Phil Gramm. but don't let facts get in your way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This Ain't Like 1929 - It's Potentially Far Worse. It Could Be Fixed But No-One in the US is Trying
Posted by: opmoc on Dec 9, 2008 12:24 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Throwing Money at banks is not the solution - because the banks themselves are out of control and are terrified themselves of going bust. That's why they won't lend anything to anyone - and are calling in all their loans in a last ditch attempt to stave off their own bankruptcy.

But the effect is completely disasterous on the real economy because the vast majority of businesses operate on the basis that normal banking facilities will be available. Take them away - and the vast majority of businesses will be unable to operate. They will have to fire everyone. No one then receives any income, and therefore no one pays any taxes. There are no funds for either central or local government. Central government itself goes bankcrupt because it is unable to pay the interest on its loans.

Basically Money Stops Working.

What happens then is anyone's guess. Will essential workers continue to work - without getting paid any money? If not you've got complete systemic collapse.

To give you an idea of how desperate the situation is The State of California which is the seventh largest economy in the world is just a few weeks off not having any cash to pay things like - well anything.

If California is in the shit - well the entire fucking world is.

This is a grovelling letter from Schwarzenegger to Paulson

http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2008/10/
text-of-schwarzenegger-letter-to.html


Extract

"Many states and local governments have been unable to secure financing for bond offerings and for routine cash flow used to make critical payments to schools, local governments and law enforcement. While some states may be able to absorb a delay or obtain high-interest financing through private banks, California is so large that our short-term cash flow needs exceed the entire budget of some states....

Absent a clear resolution to this financial crisis that restores confidence and liquidity to the credit markets, California and other states may be unable to obtain the necessary level of financing to maintain government operations and may be forced to turn to the Federal Treasury for short-term financing."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Hoped for Answer:
Posted by: gellero1 on Dec 10, 2008 10:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FED to GOVERNATOR:

" DROP DEAD !! "

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reality Check...
Posted by: kurt marin on Dec 14, 2008 11:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Folks, a few points...

To NoPCZone:
It appears that Republic Windows was a "credit worthy" borrower, they, like most businesses are caught up in this lack of credit liquidity issue, where businesses can't get access to the normal lines of credit that they use for normal operating purposes. It is normal operating procedure for businesses to access open lines of credit for payroll and expenses while waiting for invoices to get paid and income to roll in. When this freezes up, a business can go belly up without operating funds. Believe me, I know, when clients are slow to pay, sometimes short term credit needs to be used to get payroll out the door, then you may not need to use it for months and months. If that locks up, you're out of business instantly, because unless you can get your staff to work without paychecks until the invoices get paid, you are effectively out of business...

We're still under the Republican "Kool-Aid" effect of thinking that businesses going belly up is just "the invisible hand of the market" at work. That is not the case in a collapse like this, since the "invisible hand" is invisible because it's just plain not there, it's panic that's causing it. Still drinking the Kool-Aid? We can't let even what appear to the only semi-viable businesses collapse like this now. Republic Windows seems to be a viable and was a historically profitable business. If we don't we'll just be paying for people on the dole and boarding up foreclosed houses for the next decade.

Secondly, yes, it is the business' responsibility to pay the vacation time and comply with labor laws, but if BoA unfairly locks up credit, it is kind of their fault, as well. After getting billions of taxpayer money to be "liquid", they still aren't lending to each other, much less businesses, and look what they are doing... buying up other banks and paying dividends (!). Paying dividends and bonuses?! Bonuses?!?!

When banks, who screwed up the economy and locked up the credit market, want individuals and small businesses to stick to their "obligations", but not stick to theirs (lending fairly and prudently), well, whose fault is that? If their actions change the entire playing field, but they still expect us little people to pay our bills, foreclose on our homes, WTF? I lost my job, in commercial real estate design, a few months ago, basically due to the f*%k up by the banks and unregulated "banking" industry, but I still must pay my bills? What gives? There is an implicit contract, I'll borrow and pay what I owe and expect no "bailout", but you don't get so greedy and criminal that you crash the economy that employs me. After that all bets are off. Where's my bailout then?

astralman:
You should read more carefully before replying with misleading information. The workers wanted their vacation pay (owed by law) and 60 days notice (owed by law). They also had severance negotiated into their contracts, yet again owed by contract... they are not being cry babies, just demanding what they were fairly owed, and would get screwed out of if they has sulked off into the night.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]