I understand the policy and I don't think it is an entirely unreasonable way to combat wealth inequality. The only point I was trying to make is that it feels disingenuous to be surprised a company has a say in the severance they pay.
I do think there are a few places where this policy breaks down. For example, the additional transaction cost makes hiring decisions "stickier." I think this hurts the employee as well as the employer.
I don't quite understand the power imbalance here. My employer requires my labor and I am willing to trade my labor for money. If I'm not happy with the arrangement I'm free to find someone else to trade with.
> I don't quite understand the power imbalance here
There's only a power imbalance if workers are prevented from organizing, or if they (for whatever reason) refuse to organize. Or if they workers are very easily replaceable.
Obviously, if you're one of 200 workers, you can't negotiate evenly with the ownership as 1/200th of the company's workforce. Same goes if you're an unskilled worker who is easy to replace. However, even then, if you organize with all 200 of your co-workers, you are closer to a balance in negotiating power since it would be hard for said company to replace all 200 workers at once.
I do think there are a few places where this policy breaks down. For example, the additional transaction cost makes hiring decisions "stickier." I think this hurts the employee as well as the employer.
I don't quite understand the power imbalance here. My employer requires my labor and I am willing to trade my labor for money. If I'm not happy with the arrangement I'm free to find someone else to trade with.