[PEN-L:8339] Re: Legal theft, chapter umpteen

[Jim Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rob writes >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.

It seems to me that a similar justification could be used to allow
capitalists to not pay interest to the bondholders.... or to not pay taxes.

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

some companies have gone bankrupt to avoid lawsuits, while others have
pulled financial tricks to avoid pension obligations, but as far as I know,
no companies have done this with severance pay unless they have actually
gone under. I'd like to know if my impression is correct.

Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx &
http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/JDevine.html