In These Times

Latest Comments view all 3

• • 08 Aug 05
  • 9:17 am

  I can really feel the love in this forum! I'm pretty loathe to get invovled in this dispute (I don't want anyone hoping that articles of clothing come to life and murder me). However, I do want to make a few points that I think are relevant. First, lawsuits alledging sexual harassment are indeed serious. And when someone cultivates a public sexual persona as Charney, it's hard to resist attributing guilt before even considering any evidence. And 'not guilty' verdicts often don't really quell the suspicion expressed by 'c'mon, the dude obviously did it.' Nonetheless, surely the accused have some right …

  Posted to Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

• • 08 Aug 05
  • 9:18 am

  The author also uses Wishart as a source and he sounds a great deal more concessionary than in the article above. There is also a comparison of the benefits AA employees receive as compared to a competing local company that is unionized by UNITE. Workers apparently complained that they didn't want unions because UNITE approached them in a confrontational manner and negelected to mention that unions invovled dues. In fact, UNITE seems to admits to initial 'miscommunications'. Does this mean that AA didn't conspire against a union in nefarious ways? No, but it certainly takes away a bit of the plausibility …

  Posted to Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

• • 10 Aug 05
  • 2:13 pm

  Peter, I hate to get all 'why are you ignoring the stuff that I said' on you, but I have to ask: why are you ignoring the stuff I said? First, there ARE ways to know whether or not a company is sweat free besides unionization. You can talk to employees. You can do investigative reporting. You can consult watchdog organizations and ask them for their findings/for their lack of findings (if the company, for example, won't act in co-operation). Most of us don't have the time or money to do these things but AA is a prime case and as …

  Posted to Wolf in Sheep's Clothing