[PEN-L:8273] Legal theft, chapter umpteen

[Rob Schaap <rws@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

G'day Pen-pals,

Am loving the info rev. thread - Harrison's finance 'spiders' v. production
nodes analogue with concentration v. purportedly 'post-fordist'
decentralisation (thanks Pete and Jim) kicks some potentially serious
bottom, for mine.

Anyway, to something else altogether ... was watching telly last night (it
was either that or mark exams) and copped a beaut argument from our current
Minister for industrial warfare (one Peter Reith).

The conversation was about severance pay and leave entitlements and such.
You see, lots of employers are winding up without paying same to their
erstwhile employees.  The employer simply cries poor (often whilst
simultaneously investing in other factories or mines through other
corporate identities), and has a friend in the minister, who, whilst
agreeing entitlements were already *morally* the property of workers, tells
us it's unrealistic to expect employers to keep aside this money as s/he is
then unable to carry on a business.  In other words, without using money
that morally belongs (according to the morality of capitalist relations,
mind) to unconsenting others, employers are unable to employ.  Changing the
law to meet the moral requirements would result in unemployment, you see.

Not much translation required, eh?  It's in workers' interests to have
their money stolen.  Without theft, there can be no business.  Simple.
Rarely has our minister been so clear in his pronouncements.  Of course,
no-one in media-land has found it very interesting, and that's an end to
that ...

Listers may remember the buzz about the Patrick company during the
wharfies' strike of last year.  As I understand it, Patrick's proprietor
started up a company, transferred the ownership of Patrick's employment
contracts to that company, but did not transfer any Patrick funds to that
company.  The workers suddenly discovered they were no longer Patrick
employees and that their new employer was penniless.  All the while,
Minister Reith was waving millions of public dollars before the suddenly
desperate.  Make trouble, and you're stuck with a wound-up employer and
consequent penury.  Go along, and the government will pay you off.

Of course, such public largesse is not available to the bemused and forlorn
of today.

Is this familiar stuff in the US?  And if not, why not?

Chers,
Rob