Somewhat surprising (though not surprising that The National Review picked it up):
This is a transcript [from] the Al Sharpton Radio program earlier [yesterday].
Al Sharpton: Yeah, well, what I don’t understand about it which is why I’m in the campaign is why wouldn’t those of us who support workers being protected, why would we not want their privacy protected. I mean why would we want them opened up to this kind of possible coercion?
Alan Krueger, the Princeton economist, has this commentary in the New York Times on the recent sit-down strike at the Republic Windows plant in Chicago and the WARN Act:
The sit-in at the Republic Windows & Doors factory in Chicago last week brought the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 — or WARN Act for short – to the forefront of attention. This law requires large employers (those with 100 or more employees) to provide 60 days of written advance notice prior to a plant closing or mass layoff.
The WARN Act was passed after a long-running, rancorous debate. President Ronald Reagan vetoed a trade bill because it included provisions of the WARN Act. The WARN Act was later reintroduced as a stand-alone measure and passed by Congress with enough votes to override a presidential veto in July 1988. The WARN Act became law without President Reagan’s signature, and he issued a statement calling the law “counterproductive.” . . .
This story gets filed under: “How Not to Deal with Associate Layoffs and Subsequent Discrimination Allegations” (via the WSJ Law Blog):
Zafar Hasan, a Muslim of Indian descent, claims that, post-9/11, he was fired from Foley & Lardner because of his religion, race, national origin and color. The district court granted the firm’s motion for summary judgment. [Yesterday], a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit reversed.
The Seventh Circuit opinion in Hasan v. Foley & Lardner, 07-3025 (7th Cir. Dec. 15, 2008) notes:
Foley initially claimed that it fired Mr. Hasan for poor performance. . . . However, after Foley located Mr. Hasan’s work evaluations, which were mostly positive, the firm changed its tune, maintaining that it actually fired Mr. Hasan not because his work was unacceptable but because it only had enough work to keep the best associates in the department occupied.