Jump to content

State of Illinois boycotting Bank of America


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 169
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

What? B-)

 

Blago is suspending all state business with BoA until Republic Windows & Doors reopens and rehires all its workers it just laid off.

 

 

Of course, Republic closed shop for a reason: they didn't have any business. So apparently, BoA is supposed to extend them a line of credit to pay other companies' workers to do nothing, or else Blago will hold his breath until he turns blue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blago is suspending all state business with BoA until Republic Windows & Doors reopens and rehires all its workers it just laid off.

 

 

Of course, Republic closed shop for a reason: they didn't have any business. So apparently, BoA is supposed to extend them a line of credit to pay other companies' workers to do nothing, or else Blago will hold his breath until he turns blue.

 

It's to provide the funds to pay the workers who are legally entitled to severence pay since the company of over 200 workers didn't give sufficient notice that they were closing. Federal law requires either 60 days' notice or 60 days' pay for the laid-off workers.

 

Bank of America cut off credit to the company, so they don't have the funds to pay the workers. Yet the bank received $25 billion in taxpayer funds as part of the U.S. Treasury's efforts to stabilize the financial markets. How about withholding that money from BoA and see how they like it when someone tells them tough luck, you're on your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, Republic closed shop for a reason: they didn't have any business. So apparently, BoA is supposed to extend them a line of credit to pay other companies' workers to do nothing, or else Blago will hold his breath until he turns blue.

 

Sounds kinda like the auto bailout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great idea. That'll teach 'em.

 

The whole idea of the credit/bank bailouts was to free up credit so businesses could continue to operate. If after getting bailed out, a financial institution still won't provide credit, then what the hell did we bail them out for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole idea of the credit/bank bailouts was to free up credit so businesses could continue to operate. If after getting bailed out, a financial institution still won't provide credit, then what the hell did we bail them out for?

 

The whole idea of the credit/bank bailouts was to free up credit so HEALTHY businesses could continue to operate.

 

It's understood by people who understand this stuff that the bailout wasn't meant to keep pumping money into insolvent entities. You know, one of the main reasons we got in this mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole idea of the credit/bank bailouts was to free up credit so HEALTHY businesses could continue to operate.

 

It's understood by people who understand this stuff that the bailout wasn't meant to keep pumping money into insolvent entities. You know, one of the main reasons we got in this mess.

Ah, those unhealthy banks will pick the healthy businesses! I get it! B-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bank of America cut off credit to the company, so they don't have the funds to pay the workers. Yet the bank received $25 billion in taxpayer funds as part of the U.S. Treasury's efforts to stabilize the financial markets. How about withholding that money from BoA and see how they like it when someone tells them tough luck, you're on your own.

 

Yeah, I kind-of figured that someone would try to argue that because BoA got federal money, they now had an obligation to give that money away. Because the easiest and quickest way to stabilize the financial markets is to loan money to people who have absolutely no chance of paying it back.

 

Let's just start writing jumbo IO ARM mortgages against McMansions for low-income buyers again while we're at it. B-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I kind-of figured that someone would try to argue that because BoA got federal money, they now had an obligation to give that money away. Because the easiest and quickest way to stabilize the financial markets is to loan money to people who have absolutely no chance of paying it back.

 

Let's just start writing jumbo IO ARM mortgages against McMansions for low-income buyers again while we're at it. B-)

 

So you think the workers should get screwed out of their 60 days severence. Once again Wall Street gets it in the pocket while Main Street gets it in the ass. Those workers played by the rules, and all they ask is that they get what they're legally entitled to. And if it takes a small portion of the financial bailout to make it right, then I'm all for it, and good for the governor for taking a hard line to stand up for the workers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think the workers should get screwed out of their 60 days severence. Once again Wall Street gets it in the pocket while Main Street gets it in the ass. Those workers played by the rules, and all they ask is that they get what they're legally entitled to. And if it takes a small portion of the financial bailout to make it right, then I'm all for it, and good for the governor for taking a hard line to stand up for the workers.

 

There's a minor flaw in your outrage. The "workers" don't work for BoA, but for Republic. It's not BoA's fault Republic doesn't have 60 days' of cash to pay its employees? May as well blame Ralph Wilson for having a December game in Toronto against Dolphins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you think the workers should get screwed out of their 60 days severence. Once again Wall Street gets it in the pocket while Main Street gets it in the ass. Those workers played by the rules, and all they ask is that they get what they're legally entitled to. And if it takes a small portion of the financial bailout to make it right, then I'm all for it, and good for the governor for taking a hard line to stand up for the workers.

 

No, I think the workers should get paid...by their employer. It's not BoA's responsibility to pay the workers of their debtors.

 

As an aside...where'd this "federal 60 day requirement" come from? Whenever a company I've worked for has gone under, I've gotten two weeks if I were lucky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bank of America cut off credit to the company, so they don't have the funds to pay the workers. Yet the bank received $25 billion in taxpayer funds as part of the U.S. Treasury's efforts to stabilize the financial markets. How about withholding that money from BoA and see how they like it when someone tells them tough luck, you're on your own.

You are so right. B of A dug themselves a hole by lending money to people who can't pay it back. The government bailed them out. The least B of A could do to show gratitude is to loan it out to someone else who can't pay it back. How else are we going to solve this problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I think the workers should get paid...by their employer. It's not BoA's responsibility to pay the workers of their debtors.

 

As an aside...where'd this "federal 60 day requirement" come from? Whenever a company I've worked for has gone under, I've gotten two weeks if I were lucky.

I thought it was a state requirement .... in any event, employers do have to notify the govt (usually the state labor / workforce agency) depending on the # employees. That's why sometimes companies will lay off in smaller waves, so they are under the radar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...