My father is going into work today to collect his things. He worked for his company, and directly for the owner for 40 years. The company is being sold. The owner is walking away with millions. My father got nothing. Zero severance. After 40 years. My poor mother thought she found a law that required severance. I had to explain to her that was Canada. It really drives home the point that our laws are meant for the capital class. We have almost no worker rights here in the US.

But employees know that there's nothing protecting their employment or retirement, and take action to minimize risk / optimize outcome (eg job hopping).

On one hand, it's really sad that companies owe nothing to employees after decades of tenure, but on the other it's really hard to see how anyone would be surprised by getting laid off with no severance after 40 years and complain about not being compensated as well as the company's owners.

>it's really hard to see how anyone would be surprised by getting laid off with no severance after 40 years and complain about not being compensated as well as the company's owners.

No where did I say that he should be compensated as well as the owner. I said it was wrong to lay him off without severance when the owner was making millions on the deal.

My father worked in a small town with few 'good' jobs. This was one of them. It feels kind of inhumane to suggest it's somehow his fault for not uprooting our family every few years in order to not be exploited.

I accepted that bargain when I started working, but I would be lying if I told you I didn't suffer from far fewer ties to friends and family because of it. I've moved 8 times in the past 15 years. That makes it almost impossible to put down roots. I have a much shallower 'support system' because of it, and I've basically sacrificed part of my wellbeing on the alter 'at will' employment.

your father worked for free for 40 years? your father had a chance to negotiate for ownership of the company, but didn't. And now you expect the owner to give up a stake during a sale?

An analogy would be if you hired someone to build a deck on your home (and you paid them for the job), and then expected to get 5% of your home value when you sold it 10 years later. That is not expected in a civilized society.

Congrats, you're the second person to fail reading comprehension today, and it's less acceptable given I've already addressed this in another comment on this same thread. No where did I say I expected the owner to grant equity. My beef is laying off my father with zero notice and NO severance after 40 years of work.

No, so long as they do so independently. However if they were to collude to suppress wages, then it becomes illegal.

Colluding to set prices is illegal, for both goods and labor. It's bad for competition

> Genuine question: why does it need to be investigated? Is there a law against rich psychopaths being psychopaths with their own money?

Because if there isn't, there should be. It's not good policy to let psychopaths run amok. An investigation is the kind of thing that could get the political wheels turning against those "rich psychopaths."

But I wouldn't be surprised if something like this is illegal already. It has a smell of anti-competitive collusion.

> Is there a law against rich psychopaths being psychopaths with their own money

Being an abusive psychopath should not be a protected behavior just because the behavior is driven by money.

There is something deeply wrong with our society if $$ === correct. It's not. We need to speak up and do something about the disgusting precedent this sets.