Bookmark & share: 
Welcome to reader comments forum, which is offered as
a "public square" for our audience. We view this space as our readers'
section of the Web site, separate from our journalistic offerings.
We hope you will use the forum to advance public dialogue and community
discourse. As such, we ask that participants refrain from personal
attacks and offensive comments. If you believe a comment is inappropriate or
offensive, you can bring it to our attention by clicking on the 'report
abuse' link by the comment. It will be reviewed by online staff.
Please understand that 1) a comment is not "inappropriate" solely
because you disagree with its author; and 2) there may be a delay while
the comment is being reviewed.
Please review our Reader Comment Guidelines.
Sort by: Oldest first | Newest First
KidsHere
of Portland, ME
Nothing to do with it? It's called bad karma.
I find it offensive convicted child sex offenders are allowed to continue breathing, it's something I have to deal with.
And this is something you will have to deal with.
'Bad karma comes to companies that hire child sex offenders...'
http://www.familywatchdog.us/ViewOffenderDetails.asp?oID=ME4651&aid=139100931&at=2&sp=1report abuse
Jun 19, 2008 11:53 AM
kitkat,
Nothing to do with it? It's called bad karma.
I find it offensive convicted child sex offenders are allowed to continue breathing, it's something I have to deal with.
And this is something you will have to deal with.
'Bad karma comes to companies that hire child sex offenders...'
http://www.familywatchdog.us/ViewOffenderDetails.asp?oID=ME4651&aid=139100931&at=2&sp=1report abuse
kitkat
of sopo, ME
My favorite is paragraph 16: "BMN disagrees with the Union’s strained interpretation of the 2007 Agreement and disagrees that the 2007 Agreement requires BMN to insist, as a condition of a sale of assets, that a buyer assume the 2007 Agreement. That is simply not what the contract says."
Um, yes, that IS what the contract says. The agreement "shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors and assigns of the Publisher." Any OTHER interpretation is strained. It's a little late to ask for clarification.
(One might possibly argue that the contract will quite likely not be "of advantage" or "benefit" to the new owner, but that's simply the structure of a standard legal statement, the meaning of which has repeatedly held up in court.)
The company lawyers must be crossing their fingers hoping the union will bite. There's no bait on that hook, fellas.report abuse
Jun 18, 2008 10:10 PM
The injured tone of the suit is somewhat entertaining to read. The "chilling effect," the "suffering," the "dire consequences." Positively Dickensian.
My favorite is paragraph 16: "BMN disagrees with the Union’s strained interpretation of the 2007 Agreement and disagrees that the 2007 Agreement requires BMN to insist, as a condition of a sale of assets, that a buyer assume the 2007 Agreement. That is simply not what the contract says."
Um, yes, that IS what the contract says. The agreement "shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors and assigns of the Publisher." Any OTHER interpretation is strained. It's a little late to ask for clarification.
(One might possibly argue that the contract will quite likely not be "of advantage" or "benefit" to the new owner, but that's simply the structure of a standard legal statement, the meaning of which has repeatedly held up in court.)
The company lawyers must be crossing their fingers hoping the union will bite. There's no bait on that hook, fellas.report abuse
kitkat
of sopo, ME
Jun 18, 2008 9:40 PM
KidsHere, your post has absolutely nothing to do with this story. Find some other forum for your little crusade. You're offensive.report abuseBarbaraB
of Portland, ME
This is tight, unbreakable language. The guild has been advised well not to negotiate on this. It is a contract, and it lasts until 2011. If Blethen is concerned, all they have to do is wait until 2011.
The only reason the PPH is taking this to court is to frighten the guild; hopefully, all members have been well advised that this is bullet proof.
This phrase can be found in nearly every legal document that concerns adverse possibilities (such as the sale of the company).
The exact same legal language in a contract with a guild in Connecticut was upheld by an administrative judge who admonished the paper's owners that their ad hominem attack on the clause was "mere after the fact rationalization to attempt to avoid the consequences of the successorship language."
Examples of this legal phase can found in numerous company filings at the Securities and Exchange Commission at
http://www.secinfo.com/d2KA5.bc.b.htm
http://sec.edgar-online.com/2008/03/17/0001104659-08-017911/Section49.asp
http://www.secinfo.com/dVgzt.617b.d.htm
and examples can be found on the Employment Law Information Network.report abuse
Jun 18, 2008 6:42 PM
Blethen and their lawyers knew exactly what they were doing in 2007 when they signed a contract with the clause that it "shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors and assigns of the Publisher."
This is tight, unbreakable language. The guild has been advised well not to negotiate on this. It is a contract, and it lasts until 2011. If Blethen is concerned, all they have to do is wait until 2011.
The only reason the PPH is taking this to court is to frighten the guild; hopefully, all members have been well advised that this is bullet proof.
This phrase can be found in nearly every legal document that concerns adverse possibilities (such as the sale of the company).
The exact same legal language in a contract with a guild in Connecticut was upheld by an administrative judge who admonished the paper's owners that their ad hominem attack on the clause was "mere after the fact rationalization to attempt to avoid the consequences of the successorship language."
Examples of this legal phase can found in numerous company filings at the Securities and Exchange Commission at
http://www.secinfo.com/d2KA5.bc.b.htm
http://sec.edgar-online.com/2008/03/17/0001104659-08-017911/Section49.asp
http://www.secinfo.com/dVgzt.617b.d.htm
and examples can be found on the Employment Law Information Network.report abuse
You must be a registered user of MaineToday.com to post a comment. Register or log in.
