3 ms·

Running and hiding when insolvency hits is illegal in most places. But sure, it's certainly possible that this has happened to his employer while that company w

by harry8 6y ago

Running and hiding when insolvency hits is illegal in most places. But sure, it's certainly possible that this has happened to his employer while that company who employ him is still providing quotes about it being impossible to find anyone who would take his place but not paying him either. So in insolvency that is deemed bankruptcy the assets of the company are traditionally used to deal with as much of the liabilities of the company as they can in rank order of those liabilities. You know secured debt ranks ahead of unsecured etc. This guy's claim on the assets of the company to get him out of that hell, for me, rank number 1, and alone. Next comes the wages due all employees not deprived of their liberty. And that's the usual way it is done too.

Aerroon 6y ago
I'm not talking about this specific instance. I'm saying that companies can fail to do something due to myriad reasons. You shouldn't tie a third party's freedom (the ship's "legal guardian") to a company behaving correctly. If the company doesn't deal with the jeopardy a person is in then governments should try to resolve it in a reasonable timeframe or at least create reasonable accommodations until the situation is resolved.
- harry8 6y ago
  Nup. Not even close. Choosing to dump your employee in hell is /wrong/. There is no excuse in this instance or any. There's a different choice you can make so make it. The end. The local laws that are a necessary condition for your employee being retained in hell are simply not interesting if you have the choice to get them out of hell. It is clear that this is a choice. But sure, the company could also agitate for legal reform in Egypt once they secured the liberty of their employee. That's a responsible thing to do. Then if a company has behaved abysmally by choosing to dump their employee in hell then the law needs to be involved on those making that decision. Absolutely. There needs to be consequences for making that /choice/. As was clearly made in this instance assuming the accuracy of the report.

by harry8 6y ago

Aerroon 6y ago

I'm not talking about this specific instance. I'm saying that companies can fail to do something due to myriad reasons. You shouldn't tie a third party's freedom (the ship's "legal guardian") to a company behaving correctly. If the company doesn't deal with the jeopardy a person is in then governments should try to resolve it in a reasonable timeframe or at least create reasonable accommodations until the situation is resolved.

harry8 6y ago
Nup. Not even close. Choosing to dump your employee in hell is /wrong/. There is no excuse in this instance or any. There's a different choice you can make so make it. The end. The local laws that are a necessary condition for your employee being retained in hell are simply not interesting if you have the choice to get them out of hell. It is clear that this is a choice. But sure, the company could also agitate for legal reform in Egypt once they secured the liberty of their employee. That's a responsible thing to do. Then if a company has behaved abysmally by choosing to dump their employee in hell then the law needs to be involved on those making that decision. Absolutely. There needs to be consequences for making that /choice/. As was clearly made in this instance assuming the accuracy of the report.