I realize this may seem unlikely to come from a daft liberal like me, and would probabaly be widely popular if anybody actually read this blog, but I am at odds with the demands of workers that have staged a sit-in at the now shuttered Republic Windows and Doors.

Oh, I understand their anger. Nobody likes losing their job, and it seems that perhaps the principals of Republic have been lying to workers for quite some time as to the ongoing viability of the company. They certainly have just cause in that respect. However, listening to their argument that since Bank of America received money from the bailout that they are thus obligated to step up and pay money to workers for their outstanding benefits, severance, vacation time is just plain wrong. Bank of America should on some level be hurt by this closure (they bet wrong lending money to the company) as much as the employees, however that does not obligate them to pay money to workers that feel slighted, because as it has been (unjustly in my opinion) reported that the company closed simply because Bank of America chose not to extend them the loan they needed to continue. Banks, including Bank of America have (and justly in my opinion) been hammered for taking on too much risky debt, and while it is true that the money infused into the system was done to open up money for lending, that doesn’t require they loan it to an entity they do not consider credit worthy.

Yes, I feel bad for those people that lost their jobs. But I don’t feel any worse for them than I do the thousands of workers that have lost jobs at Lehman Brothers because of bad management, than those that are losing their jobs at Wamu or Wachovia, workers that lost their jobs not through any fault of their own. If Lehman workers decided to lay siege on the building in midtown Manhattan, do you think they would have been cheered on by the media and the general public? I highly doubt it. Despite the fact that many were just workers, the average man working for a financial giant, they would have been viewed much differently because the machine they operate is a computer and phone rather than “machinery.” Much is often made about how the little guy is treated differently. But in this case they are allowed to seize property that does not belong to them.

Before a meeting with company officials, even union representative Melvin Maclin, expressed his surprise at their popularity as a symbol of the troubled economy.

“We never expected this,” said factory employee Melvin Maclin, vice president of the union local that represents the workers. “We expected to go to jail.”

And in reality, they probably should and in better economic times would. I am not saying Bank of America is necessary faultless in all of this, but I don’t understand how they could be expected to “step up” where it is not their place to do so. Nor is it the right of the former workers to hold hostage property that does not belong to them. More than a million people in this country lost their jobs this year. Yes, some of them (but certainly not all) received severance packages and the like, but many others were shown the door or watched their businesses fold without additional compensation. If they have a beef, they need to take it up with the principals of the company, or even perhaps look to the courts under fraud, but they are not heroes for holding hostage, that which is not theirs.

Update: In this video, while they say that they have “issues” with the company, they clearly think it is Bank of America that should “pay them with bailout funds.”

Filed under: Economy, General