It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Angry Laid-off Workers Occupy Factory in Chicago

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 07:49 PM

Approximately 200 workers who are angry about getting laid off from their factory jobs at Chicago's Republic Windows and Doors occupied the building Saturday. (Dec. 6)


[edit on [0Dec19]073131p: by hippy2012]

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 07:56 PM
I am sorry that the youtube video will not work, I guess I am just not savvy enough

On another note though; this is a very interesting story, I am guessing that we will see many more situations that arise like this in the near future. They are protesting because the factory only gave them 3 days notice instead of 60 days (which is against the law). I hope people can wake up and realize what is going on around them...

[edit on [0Dec20]083131p: by hippy2012]

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 07:59 PM
reply to post by hippy2012

Do you have a link to the whole story, besides the youtube video, since that is not working?
I would like to read the whole story on it.

[edit on 6-12-2008 by questioningall]

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 08:02 PM
reply to post by questioningall

Hey, sorry again about the youtube link. Hope this helps

CHICAGO – Workers who got three days' notice their factory was shutting its doors have occupied the building and say they won't go home without assurances they'll get severance and vacation pay they say they are owed.

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 08:20 PM
They were also there to meet with management to make sure they got their paid leave time, and their severeance pay. There congressman was there and had helped arrange the meeting, but management choose not to show up. I hope managaement gets their butts thrown in jail, big fine, etc. plus having to pay the workers ALL the appropriate benefits.

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 08:35 PM
Just a sign of the machine



Too much "consumerism" not enough "manufacturing" here.

Nuff said

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 08:40 PM
only gave them 3 days notice instead of 60 days (which is against the law).

I have never heard of that!!ware i work its the same day you are gone.

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 08:49 PM
The company may have an out, in the WARN law:

IV. Notice May Be Given Less Than 60 Days in Advance of Plant Shutdown

Employers may provide less than 60 days’ notice of a plant shutdown without incurring WARN liability if they can satisfy one of three, limited conditions. The three exceptions apply to plant closings or mass layoffs precipitated by (i) a natural disaster, (ii) unforeseeable business circumstances, or (iii) a faltering company.
Losing their line of credit may qualify under section ii, as an unforeseeable business circumstance.

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 08:54 PM
I'm sure we'll be hearing the truth as to what really happened there. The bank may have possibly interfered in some way.

Even so, the owners should have made a statement as to why by someone such as a lawyer. Maybe they skipped town with the payroll?

My brother-in-law had a simialr problem where he worked also. Considering what the banking and investment firms have done lately, nothing should surprise us like this.

Most likely they'll have to file bankruptcy. Occupying the factory sounds archaic. The government should have stepped in a locked the place up solid.

This is nuts.

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 08:55 PM
reply to post by slayerfan

The law that they are referring to is the WARN act. There is a federal WARN act, and Illinois also has a WARN act.
Worker Adjustment Retraining and Notification Act (WARN) and the Bankruptcy Code.

Here are some facts concerning both:

On August 15, 2004, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich approved passage of the Illinois Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“Illinois WARN”). The Act became effective January 1, 2005. The Illinois WARN Act requires employers to give 60 days notice to employees and their unions, the Illinois Department of Commerce & Economic Opportunity’s Bureau of Workforce Development and the Illinois Department of Labor, of a plant closing or mass layoff.

The Illinois law is very similar to the Federal WARN act. However, there are some important differences between the two laws:

Federal WARN - Applies to employers with 100 or more full-time workers

Definition of “Mass Layoff” triggering notice requirements:

* 50 or more full-time employees are laid off if they constitute one-third or more of the full-time employees at the site, or
* 500 or more full-time employees

Illinois WARN - Applies to employer with 75 or more full-time workers

Definition of “Mass Layoff” triggering notice requirements:

* 25 or more full-time employees are laid off if they constitute one-third or more of the full-time employees at the site, or
* 250 or more full-time employees

Another important difference is in the enforcement of the Act. Under federal WARN, neither the Federal nor the State may initiate actions for alleged non-compliance. Only employees and local government officials may initiate action in federal court.

On the other hand, the Illinois WARN Law maintains that the Director of the Illinois Department of Labor is to make rules with “provisions that allow the parties access to administrative hearings for any actions of the Department under this Act.” Furthermore, in “any investigation or proceeding under this Act,” the Director has authority to “examine the books and records of an employer” in order “to determine whether a violation of this Act has occurred.”

Exceptions to the notice requirements are permitted for unforeseen circumstances such as, for example, a strike or lockout, or physical calamities at the site.

Notice Must Be Provided To Illinois’ Dislocated Worker Division:

Becky Harmon, Assistant Deputy Director
Bureau of Workforce Development
Illinois Department of Commerce & Economic Opportunity
620 East Adams Street, 5th Floor
Springfield, IL 62701

What the notice must contain:

* The name and address of the employment site(s) where the plant closing or mass layoff will occur;
* Whether the planned action is expected to be permanent or temporary and if the entire plant is to be closed, a statement to that effect;
* The expected date of the first separation, and the anticipated schedule for making separations;
* The job titles of positions to be affected, and the number of affected employees in each job classification; (for multiple sites, list per site)
* A statement as to the existence of any applicable bumping rights;
* The name of each union representing affected employees, and the name and address of the chief elected officer of each union, if none please state; and,
* The name and telephone number of a company official to contact for further information.

(Please include the employer's federal identification number, or FEIN, for the dislocating company on WARN correspondence)

Illinois WARN Complaints

To file a complaint regarding the Illinois WARN act please contact:
Tom Whalen, Division Manager
Conciliation & Mediation
Illinois Department of Labor
(217) 782-1710

Note though, that the external source I quoted is not complete. This is a messy situation, and will require lawyers to determine whether Illinois or Federal WARN provisions apply.
My guess, though, is that the loss of credit will give the company an out.

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 08:57 PM
reply to post by slayerfan

I have never heard of that!!ware i work its the same day you are gone.

The law concerns plant SHUTDOWNS, not individual layoffs.

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 10:17 PM
Federal labor law will supersede State labor law. The company will probably have an out for item 2 and 3, but in reality, a judge will determine it.

My very first thoughts on this matter is that Union employees are trying to force a company to maintain their jobs regardless of the loss the company has. I'm a strong union guy, but this is just wrong. The company has to be financially sound or even in a break even position for the company to stay afloat.

Their contract will spell out what rights they have on separation with the company. The company has no say in this matter as it is a binding contract. The issues cited by the union are just more for show than substance to build public support.

As for the meeting between the different parties, the union has absolutely no right to be involved with the bank and the company. If the union wants to buy the company, then by all means, meet with banking officials all you want, on your time and with your bank. But if that was my company and those were my employees, they'd be ex-employees. They have zero rights or any interest in the financial side of the operation of the company. Their only interest is to fulfill the contract between labor and management.

What has me really concerned is that you will see more of this as economic conditions worsen. Some of these will not be as peaceful as this one is.

top topics


log in