> When I drove out to lunch, US National Public Radio news
> presented this differently:
> it said that Stanley decided not to move because it
> anticipated congressional reforms
> would take the profit out of the move.
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
>
> ======================
Ian writes:
> Redescription in action [meaning what?] .......Was there any mention of the
> AFL-CIO action at the company "headquarters"?
no, there's hardly time for anything in a 10-second newsblurb. But it seems to me that it's quite possible that Stanley's revision of its decision was the result of _both_ pressure such as the AFL-CIO's _and_ the sympathy it's getting from the congresscritters (and thus the increasing likelihood of hoped-for "reforms").
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
