Polarised postions do not make for instructive debate:
"In this case of course, the ripped-off employees didn't go into this with their eyes open."
We cannot possibly know this. They might all have left compliant employers to joint the new start-up company, based solely on the fact that weekly nett pay was higher. If the OP's brother is only in business for 4 years, there is a very good chance that he hired people from other employers by offering higher nett pay.
"There is a fairly good chance that they barely spoke English."
True, but irrelevant; There is no reason to suspect that non-English speaking construction workers are less well educated than English speakers - anecdotally the opposite seems to be the case (except where foreign workers were brought in en masse by a foreign employer such as Gama).
And on the other side:
"There are not two moral classes in this country, or any country, where the pure of heart “workin’ man” get abused by the big bad evil fat-cat bosses. "
I think if Purple had the chance to re-consider, he\she might omit the words 'any country'. We do live in a country where the rights of employees are by and large well protected. We should not take this achievement for granted: there are many countries, and some sectors within our country, where it just isn't so. The plight of vegetable pickers in the UK has already been highlighted on more than one documentary. The chinese cockle harvesters are another good example. I could give examples in Ireland from personal knowledge, but there could be confidentiality issues.
The point which I did want to make, and which seems to have been lost in the dust from the 'duelling pistols' approach, is that the construction industry of the last few years is probably not a place where one can easily characterise the employees as innocent victims, even in circumstances where their pension payments have not been paid.
"In this case of course, the ripped-off employees didn't go into this with their eyes open."
We cannot possibly know this. They might all have left compliant employers to joint the new start-up company, based solely on the fact that weekly nett pay was higher. If the OP's brother is only in business for 4 years, there is a very good chance that he hired people from other employers by offering higher nett pay.
"There is a fairly good chance that they barely spoke English."
True, but irrelevant; There is no reason to suspect that non-English speaking construction workers are less well educated than English speakers - anecdotally the opposite seems to be the case (except where foreign workers were brought in en masse by a foreign employer such as Gama).
And on the other side:
"There are not two moral classes in this country, or any country, where the pure of heart “workin’ man” get abused by the big bad evil fat-cat bosses. "
I think if Purple had the chance to re-consider, he\she might omit the words 'any country'. We do live in a country where the rights of employees are by and large well protected. We should not take this achievement for granted: there are many countries, and some sectors within our country, where it just isn't so. The plight of vegetable pickers in the UK has already been highlighted on more than one documentary. The chinese cockle harvesters are another good example. I could give examples in Ireland from personal knowledge, but there could be confidentiality issues.
The point which I did want to make, and which seems to have been lost in the dust from the 'duelling pistols' approach, is that the construction industry of the last few years is probably not a place where one can easily characterise the employees as innocent victims, even in circumstances where their pension payments have not been paid.