[HN Gopher] An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundred...
___________________________________________________________________
An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions a
Year
Author : paulpauper
Score : 175 points
Date : 2021-09-04 18:27 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.epi.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.epi.org)
| balozi wrote:
| To play the devils advocate for a moment, I will suggest that the
| opposite of wage theft, whereby employees steal time/resources
| from their employers, is in orders of magnitude far greater.
| Almost no employee devotes 100% of their effort and time to their
| employer during paid time. Lots of socializing, day dreaming and
| standing around at every workplace. My point is to suggest that
| there are nuances to employer-employee arrangements that policy
| institutes can not account for.
| overtonwhy wrote:
| People are human beings, not robots. What you're suggesting is
| inhumane. Maybe that's not something worth advocating for
| regardless of who is paying you.
| actually_a_dog wrote:
| Needs (2014)
| effnorwood wrote:
| "Inflation"
| CheezeIt wrote:
| If this is over the normal course of business and spread out over
| years, as it would be for workers not getting paid a few minutes
| preparing their workstation before their shift, or not having
| rest breaks, then it's an implied (or explicit!) part of the
| employment contract and not actually any sort of scam. Assigning
| the word "theft" is dishonest.
| fisherjeff wrote:
| Not a lawyer but I would not advise writing "we will disregard
| federal labor law" into an employment agreement
| CheezeIt wrote:
| You're relying to an imaginary version of my comment.
| eschaton wrote:
| Not really; you're saying that these violations of the law
| can become implicitly part of the terms of work and should
| be accepted as such, when _they're violations of the law_
| and therefore _cannot_ be considered part of the terms of
| work.
| cma wrote:
| Hundreds of millions in the US is from $0.30 up to $2.99 per
| capita.
|
| Maybe similar in scale to yearly losses from stuck vending
| machines.
| C19is20 wrote:
| Every vending machine should have a "just give it to me"
| button. I don't care about you not having change - i want the
| product...just give it to me.
| [deleted]
| iso1210 wrote:
| "Between 2012 and 2013, McDonald's reached agreement with the
| Kentucky Labor Cabinet to pay $29,000 in back wages to 203
| affected workers"
|
| So basically you steal the money, and if you're caught
| (unlikely), you just have to give it back.
|
| Maybe I should try that next time I'm in a restaurant.
| dataflow wrote:
| > Maybe I should try that next time I'm in a restaurant.
|
| Perhaps ironically, people frequently place orders at
| restaurant and then decline to come to pick them up & pay. They
| restaurant still ends up providing the service they promise,
| and the customer declines to make the payment they promise.
|
| It's terrible, but my understanding is it's similarly quite
| commonplace and hardly ever prosecuted.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Because it is not a crime.
|
| You can order whatever you want unless a payment is made and
| product accepted a legal transaction hasn't occured. Missed
| items, uncooked food, poor quality are common reasons not to
| accept and send back. You can decide to decline the
| transaction at any point.
|
| What businesses do is make the person pay first. Rarely does
| a fastfood worker take my order.. stop.. makes my food and
| then asks me to pay. They take my money serve the next
| person, I wait to get called.
|
| A drive through is different and they get very low rates of
| drivers ordering only to drive away.
|
| Businesses have found a way to deal with this issue.
| SiVal wrote:
| "You can order whatever you want unless a payment is made
| and product accepted a legal transaction hasn't occured."
|
| It may or may not be a crime depending on intent, but a
| transaction is not the issue. It is breach of contract.
| Laws obviously vary around the world, but the US Uniform
| Commercial Code is probably typical. The restaurant has
| made an offer. The customer has accepted it. There is
| agreed-to "consideration" (value) to be provided by both
| sides. If the restaurant does what they said they would do
| you, having accepted the "offer" by making an order, are
| bound to do what you said you would do (pay the price that
| you knew was the price when you accepted the offer.)
|
| Just increase the dollar amounts by a large enough factor,
| and you'll see it. A company sells widgets. I order a
| million dollars worth, items that can't simply be put back
| in stock and resold to others. They make them, but I don't
| pick them up. I'm not arguing that they didn't do their
| part by making defective items. I'm (probably) not required
| to pick them up, but I am required to pay what I agreed.
| You are saying "no transaction occurred", but that's not at
| issue. The company will (rightly) sue me for breach of
| contract.
|
| It's the same for fast food except that the static friction
| of legal costs vastly overpowers the scale of recovery from
| the breach of contract for each instance of no-show. But if
| a single order for $10,000 (catering a company picnic) is
| not picked up, you get past the friction, and the
| restaurant will sue for breach of contract.
| dataflow wrote:
| All the examples you mention are those where the customer
| actually intended to pay if the meal is properly cooked,
| and thus would have if there were no issues. Not ones where
| they place an order intending _not_ to make the payment
| they promise to. Are you sure _that_ isn 't a crime? It
| sounds like fraud to me (or some other crime) but I'm not a
| lawyer.
|
| The problem is likely that distinguishing these for
| prosecution/conviction, but that's probably a similarity
| with wage theft, not a dissimilarity.
| [deleted]
| thombat wrote:
| Not quite the same, since McDonalds actually enjoyed the
| benefit of the labor without paying. So it's as if the
| customers sat down and ate the meal, then declined to pay. If
| the cops get called the consequence is probably worse than
| merely having to pay what was already agreed.
| dataflow wrote:
| Neither is a perfect analogy, but note that in your example
| the customer is actually depriving the restaurant of their
| possession of some goods without payment, i.e. it's theft.
| The example here is about services being rendered.
| Retric wrote:
| Restaurants regularly resell goods in cases like this.
| I've had it happen when I was 10 minutes late.
|
| Worst case they can give it to workers at the end of the
| shift.
| dataflow wrote:
| I wish they did that more! I haven't seen it happen much
| personally but I'm glad you've seen it a lot. I know not
| long ago I went to a restaurant where I saw meals had
| been waiting for pickup for several hours... right before
| they were closing. Probably easier for small businesses
| than chains/franchises I'm guessing.
| verall wrote:
| Are you saying that labor being deprived of their, uh,
| labor, is not comparable to businesses being deprived of
| their goods?
| dataflow wrote:
| I'm saying that _legally speaking_ (not morally
| speaking), being deprived of intangible things (aka
| services, think "verbs") is _somewhat_ different from
| being deprived of tangible things (aka goods, think
| "nouns"). Neither entirely different (obviously), nor
| entirely identical (obviously). They're not treated the
| same way in general and I don't think you'd want to treat
| them identically for legal purposes.
| ineptech wrote:
| It's not always true that you "just have to give it back";
| repeat offenders do get taken to the woodshed sometimes.
|
| But, when employers and employees steal from each other, the
| fact that one is a criminal matter and the other a civil matter
| says a great deal about the law is and what purpose it was
| designed to serve.
| anonchan wrote:
| Stealing from a restaurant is a criminal matter because
| you're taking (by force or concealing your actions) what
| doesn't belong to you. A restaurant not paying wages is a
| civil matter because they failed to fulfill their contractual
| obligations to pay you and are in debt. Arguing that taking
| money by force and not paying money are equivalent is
| comparing apples and oranges.
|
| (It may be appropriate to criminalize failing to pay
| employees, but I'm not sure about the first and higher-order
| effects of doing so, or how to craft legal principles and
| laws with the right incentives, while avoiding special cases
| like the laundry list of exemptions to California's AB5.)
| jseliger wrote:
| Emergency medicine doctors appear to routinely suffer from
| this: most are expected to stay after their 12-hour shifts
| (some EDs have 8, 9, or 10 hour shifts, but 12 is common) to
| finish charting and take care of other tasks, but hospitals
| never pay for this time. I've asked EM docs about taking this
| to state labor boards and the like, but most seem not to think
| that wage theft is a problem, or fear retaliation too much to
| do so.
| tedunangst wrote:
| I imagine there's an equilibrium, where they can be paid $25
| per hour for eight hours and do ten hours of work, or follow
| strict time keeping and get paid $20 per hour for ten hours.
| Both parties to the agreement seem to have an understanding
| that there's a certain amount of work to do and a certain
| amount of compensation provided.
| astura wrote:
| Are you sure these doctors are paid hourly?
|
| Because if they are salaried they are exempt from the FLSA
| and not entitled to overtime. (Mind you, that doesn't
| actually prevent hospitals from paying overtime, they just
| aren't required to.)
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Docs are typically salaried, aren't they?
| jseliger wrote:
| An excellent point: some are, but many aren't, particularly
| in fields like emergency medicine (EM) and anesthesia. 1099
| work is common as is hourly w-2 work.
| bserge wrote:
| I usually shit on them all, but maybe I shouldn't. It was the
| legal system that forced powers onto them, after all.
| dataflow wrote:
| Flight attendants might be another example.
| Aunche wrote:
| The flip side of wage theft is time theft, where the employee
| lies about the hours they worked. In most cases, the offender
| just gets fired. They aren't even required to give the money
| back because it's generally more trouble than it's worth to
| make them do so.
| kennywinker wrote:
| False equivalence. Wage theft is companies using their power
| as an employer to rob workers. Time theft is sneaking around
| the edges. It's not "pay me for this time i didn't work or i
| quit". We care about this because of the power imbalance, and
| it's not present in the time theft case.
| brohoolio wrote:
| If USPS can get away with wage theft easily without consequences,
| I'm guessing it's even easier for private employers.
|
| https://www.npr.org/2021/09/02/1033727651/investigation-show...
| aftbit wrote:
| How many dollars were actually stolen, over what time frame?
| They mentioned dozens of post offices and some workers losing
| thousands of dollars, but how much exactly?
| jesstuck wrote:
| I can attest to this. Was a seasonal worker and they had
| bungled my paychecks for six weeks. Getting back pay was
| grueling and time consuming. The union had promised to make the
| situation right, but they were useless. All the while I
| couldn't pay my rent.
| [deleted]
| han2432 wrote:
| how is this tech related again?
| yardie wrote:
| I see you are new here; account created today.
|
| You should familiarize yourself with HN guidelines [0] about
| etiquette, new user.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| arcbyte wrote:
| Off-Topic: Most stories about ... crime.
|
| Wage theft has been a crime for millenia. This is off topic
| and GP is right.
| aaron-santos wrote:
| Who said HN was strictly about tech?
| ruined wrote:
| many of the most successful startups are indistinguishable from
| obfuscated wage theft schemes, so there's much to learn from
| historical precedent
| specialist wrote:
| Why are people criticizing Freedom Labors(tm)? If those workers
| are in any way unhappy, they should just find another job. It's a
| simple application of Freedom Markets(tm) principles to labor
| relations.
| lostlogin wrote:
| Assuming that minimum wage workers have the time, money or
| ability to find a better job is one hell of an assumption.
|
| Giving minimum wage workers the benefit of labour regulations
| minimum standard doesn't seem a big ask to me.
|
| Maybe I'm missing your angle?
| specialist wrote:
| Sorry, no, I'm being too clever by half. "Freedom
| Markets(tm)" is how I mock the cult of the free market. Ditto
| Freedom Speeches(tm), Freedom Labors(tm), etc.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries
| dataflow wrote:
| > This failure to pay what workers are legally entitled to can be
| called wage theft; in essence, it involves employers taking money
| that belongs to their employees and keeping it for themselves.
|
| Shouldn't it be called fraud rather than theft? I thought theft
| is depriving someone of something they own... but you don't own
| the money yet before the payment is made. My understanding was,
| if you intended to pay a debt, but later refuse to, then you pay
| it back with some interest (or none, depending on the agreement)
| and it doesn't qualify as theft. And if you didn't intend to pay
| it when you acquired the debt, it's fraud... still not theft.
|
| The semantics really matter, I think. And I think it might be a
| great example of why we should really not muddy discussions of
| crimes (or other things for that matter, I guess). If you insist
| on treating unpaid debts as theft, and you get exactly what you
| asked for, you're probably not going to like the outcome. You
| don't own your employer's money until it's paid to you, just like
| how a credit card company doesn't own your money until you make
| your bill payment. Otherwise everyone who declines to make a
| payment on their credit card bill would also be a thief.
| acituan wrote:
| > I thought theft is depriving someone of something they own...
|
| Semantics really matter indeed. What does "to own" means for
| you? To have it on your person? To have it in your bank
| account? To hold it with your hands?
|
| Turns out it is much more complicated than that and none of
| these conditions are neither necessary nor sufficient. You
| should look up the _bundle of rights_ definition of private
| property to see how complicated it gets. The moment you
| contractually are entitled to that money, but deprived of your
| right of exercising your agency over it, you 're being deprived
| of your property too, hence the appropriateness of the term
| "theft".
|
| > if you intended to pay a debt, but later refuse to, then you
| pay it back with some interest
|
| Only if you agreed to this contractually (or whatever ambient
| legal context defines the terms otherwise). "But I was gonna
| pay interest on it" is not a defense of delinquency. It is like
| I can steal your TV and say "I was gonna return it back, with a
| smaller TV on the side". You can't deprive people of their
| bundle of property rights (e.g. right of access and use) willy
| nilly.
|
| > Otherwise everyone who declines to make a payment on their
| credit card bill would also be a thief.
|
| Terms of this is very clearly defined on your credit card
| agreement; you are in delinquency of that missed pay indeed,
| hence the consequences of penalty payments, credit score impact
| and so forth.
| detaro wrote:
| "Wage theft" is an established term with clear meaning, is it
| really helpful in any way to try and cherry-pick it from first
| principles despite that? Nobody is using "wage theft" to
| suggest treating all unpaid debts as "theft".
| xyzzyz wrote:
| It is established through unceasing efforts of activists, who
| pushed for it, precisely in order to exploit the negative
| connotations of the word "theft" to describe something that
| is not what people typically associate with the notion of
| theft.
|
| If you go with your friends to restaurant, with the
| understanding that you'll pay the bill everyone will pay you
| their part, but one of them refuses to do so afterwards,
| would anyone call this "meal theft"? No. Your friend is still
| morally in the wrong, of course, it's just not what "theft"
| is.
| ineptech wrote:
| > It is established through unceasing efforts of activists,
| who pushed for it, precisely in order to exploit the
| negative connotations of the word "theft" to describe
| something that is not what people typically associate with
| the notion of theft.
|
| Source? I think this term has been in general use for at
| least two generations.
| xyzzyz wrote:
| You're very much wrong then. It was not commonly used
| until 2003, when it really took off, and today it's used
| around 500 times more often than 20 years ago. Suffice to
| say, wage theft is not a 500 times bigger problem now
| compared to then.
|
| https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=wage+theft&
| yea...
| gruez wrote:
| Agreed. This is basically the same thing that happened to
| copyright infringement. The copyright lobby tried to paint
| it as theft, and then later as piracy.
| dataflow wrote:
| I think so? I could totally see laws getting passed treating
| them similarly as an attempt (or purported attempt) to solve
| the problem. It's not like it's a wild idea to treat
| everyone's debts uniformly.
| 5faulker wrote:
| Entitlement is itself a dangerous concept, but transparency in
| accounting on this front is a must. Only if we do so can we
| know whether we're conducting fair trades (which is basically
| what embloyment is in the marketplace).
| dls2016 wrote:
| The semantics absolutely do not matter here.
| elliekelly wrote:
| > You don't own your employer's money until it's paid to you.
|
| I think you're conflating wages earned and wages paid. You most
| definitely do "own" the funds you've earned even if your
| employer has not yet paid them out to you.
| dataflow wrote:
| > I think you're conflating wages earned and wages paid. You
| most definitely do "own" the funds you've earned even if your
| employer has not yet paid them out to you.
|
| "Own"... in what sense? Legally? If I went to withdraw that
| money from my employer's bank account, would they let me, or
| would they tell me that's not my money, even though it was
| supposed to be paid to me?
| Grimm1 wrote:
| It doesn't matter what your employer would do it matters
| that you're legally entitled to it and a court would
| enforce it and have it paid to you.
|
| Your private employer doesn't have the ability to define
| ownership. Governments, and by extension the judiciary,
| however typically are granted that.
| dataflow wrote:
| > It doesn't matter what your employer would do
|
| "They" was referring to the bank, not the employer.
|
| > it matters that you're legally entitled to it and a
| court would enforce it and have it paid to you.
|
| They wouldn't do it in the same situation as theft I
| think, though, which is kind of my point. Like if a
| coworker who joined the week after you got paid from the
| funds that should've gone to you the week before, and
| they were already aware of the practice, they would not
| be receiving "stolen goods" and I'm pretty sure a court
| would not say you'd be entitled to claw it back from the
| other employee because the funds somehow actually
| _belonged_ to you. (Because they didn 't; they were
| merely _owed_ a.k.a. promised-that-they-would-someday-
| belong to you.)
|
| If it helps, I see this as somewhat (not entirely)
| similar to the difference between stocks and stock
| options. Just because you have the option to get some
| stocks, that doesn't mean you own the stocks.
| Grimm1 wrote:
| That really makes no difference, sure, if it was a bank
| and the court was enforcing it, they would happily give
| you your money.
|
| A court would say you're legally entitled to claw it back
| from your employer because that is your money, legally,
| after performing your work duties per your employment
| contract and labor law.
| dataflow wrote:
| > if it was a bank and the court was enforcing it
|
| Because then you would own the money _after the court
| legally transfers the ownership_. They don 't belong to
| you _beforehand_ , is what I'm saying.
|
| > A court would say you're legally entitled to claw it
| back from your employer
|
| _Not from the other employee_. You completely missed the
| points of my examples, especially the one about receiving
| stolen goods. Try reading them again.
|
| If you just want to call it theft despite all the
| differences it has with actual theft, I obviously can't
| stop you, but I tried to explain precisely some rather
| important differences in how they're treated.
| Grimm1 wrote:
| You always owned it, the court is simply confirming and
| enforcing it.
|
| You don't claw it back from your co-worker because money
| is fungible and just because they received money that
| could have paid you doesn't mean that's your money.
| That's money owed to them from your employer who also
| owes you money.
|
| Honestly I ignored that initially in my response because
| I thought the example was a bit contrived and because of
| my above reasoning didn't really hold water.
| dataflow wrote:
| > You always owned it, the court is simply confirming and
| enforcing it.
|
| > just because they received money that could have paid
| you doesn't mean that's your money
|
| These are in _direct contradiction_ with each other, and
| you confirmed exactly what I 'm saying in the second one.
| This is _exactly_ how the money _isn 't_ yours! That
| money in the bank _isn 't_ yours either just because the
| employer could've paid you with it!
|
| I'm not sure where to go from here (I feel like you just
| made my point for me) but if we still disagree then I
| guess we might just have to leave it a that.
| Grimm1 wrote:
| I think we differ on the semantics, I see "This money is
| owed to me" as I own that money. I may not physically
| have it in my possession but I have mechanisms to
| retrieve it and that is wherein ownership is for me. I
| think, and correct me if I'm wrong, your concern is
| unless you have it physically you can't say you own
| something.
|
| > These are in direct contradiction with each other, and
| you confirmed exactly what I'm saying in the second one.
| This is exactly how the money isn't yours! That money in
| the bank isn't yours either just because the employer
| could've paid you with it!
|
| By my above clarification does it make sense from my
| viewpoint if I now say something like, "That money is
| mine, my employer is simply holding it for me, because I
| could use the courts to retrieve it if they said they
| don't want to give it to me."
|
| You don't have to agree I just want to make sure I'm
| getting my point across.
| dataflow wrote:
| > I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, your concern is
| unless you have it physically you can't say you own
| something.
|
| No, that's not what I'm saying. You can obviously lend
| something and it still belongs to you even though someone
| else possesses it.
|
| I'm saying that if something has _previously_ belonged to
| someone else, it will not be yours until and unless
| either (a) its existing owners, or (b) a valid legal
| procedure actually transfers the ownership. Moreover,
| until that is the case, you cannot take possession of it
| without the consent of the owners, and doing so would not
| make you its owner. Furthermore, a mere contract that you
| would be paid $X by Y time does not imply you will be the
| owner of $X of the payer 's money at Y time (nor
| earlier). It is merely a _promise_ to transfer ownership,
| which may or may not occur due to numerous reasons both
| inside and outside the employer 's control. Just like how
| a stock option is a _promise_ to transfer stock, not a
| grant of ownership of the stock, and just like how that
| has nothing to do with your physical possession of
| anything.
|
| I'm pretty sure it's possible to write a contract that
| actually _grants_ you ownership of some funds by a
| certain time, but I 'd bet no employer would agree to
| that. Precisely because it would have quite different
| legal implications than merely a promise of payment.
|
| I get the feeling the confusion here is that you're
| conflating moral ownership with legal ownership. That you
| have a moral right to something and that there exists a
| legal procedure to grant you ownership doesn't mean you
| are the owner before that procedure occurs.
| salawat wrote:
| I think you too are talking past each other because both
| of you are focusing only on the money, and not the
| obligation, and just looking at the money, and who owns
| it is not how modern finance works.
|
| Modern finance is essentially the Art of I.O.U's.
|
| Before Grimm1's instance of someone else getting hired
| on, your hypothetical employer has their affairs set up
| such that expected payroll is met. Payroll is calculated
| as a function of headcount, and often, the business
| owner/primary equityholder are the end eater's of any
| financial shortfalls. They get paid _last_. Payroll must
| be paid _first_ , vendors generally fall somewhere _in
| between_ , and are somewhat more flexible in how you can
| accommodate them, as long as you make good on it.
|
| Grimm1's scenario would therefore properly play out as
| the Owner doesn't take home as much (honestly any profit
| if things have deteriorated to the point you can't meet
| payroll).
|
| The courts do not look favorably on not paying your
| people, and in bankruptcy, your payroll obligations take
| primacy(I think).
|
| You (dataflow) don't necessarily paint the most accurate
| picture in the sense that the liability does in fact
| exist in a materially fashion. You can "call it" in the
| same way that a bank can do a "margin call", which
| usually requires getting an agent of the court involved.
|
| The sad thing is, legal representation/effective
| litigation has such a high barrier to entry, that most
| people don't even realize they can. The other problem is
| the additional legal costs may jeopardize a business to
| the point it death spirals, ensuring you never get made
| whole.
|
| USPS is an interesting case, because I'm not sure what
| else might be in play due to it's quasi-public nature. A
| federal institution cannot go into arrears. (Literally, a
| lot of Federal managers won't even be comfortable letting
| you do volunteer work in my experience). They have to
| furlough on budget shortfalls. But USPS is not "Federal"
| like most Executive agencies, as they are still
| technically private, or have been operated that way,
| while also being Constitutionally mandated to exist.
|
| USPS as I recall, is also one of the only employers
| required to pre-fund their pension liabilities. Unlike
| everyone else in the private sector who apparently
| aren't.
| Joeri wrote:
| Are you arguing in good faith? It is clear that the
| employer owes a debt to the employee as soon as the labor
| is performed per the labor agreement. The employee owns the
| debt. In theory they could sue to get that debt paid, in
| practice they probably can't afford to.
| dataflow wrote:
| > Are you arguing in good faith?
|
| Yes? Kind of insulting that you ask, but thanks for at
| least asking instead of just accusing.
|
| > It is clear that the employer owes a debt to the
| employee as soon as the labor is performed per the labor
| agreement. The employee owns the debt.
|
| The employee owns the _debt_ , not the _funds_. That 's
| precisely the reason the employee needs to sue: he
| doesn't own the money yet. Otherwise he wouldn't need to
| sue; it would already be his and he could take possession
| of it.
|
| Consider this: if the employee went into the employer's
| drawer and took out cash to get his pay without
| authorization, is that legal? I'm pretty sure _that_ 's
| theft, despite him legally owning the debt. Which I think
| is why you don't see e.g. underpaid cashiers going around
| removing cash from registers to repay stolen wages.
|
| If it helps, you can also look at this from another
| angle: stolen goods can in general be returned directly
| to their owners. And stolen goods are in general illegal
| to possess knowingly. Now what would happen if that money
| was subsequently paid to another employee? Could the
| first one claw it back on the basis that it was _theirs_?
| No, I 'm pretty sure he'd get to keep it because the
| money never actually "belonged" to the first employee. Or
| if the second employee was already aware of the wage
| having been "stolen" from the first one, is he now also a
| criminal for receiving stolen goods? I'm pretty sure the
| answer is no, but you're welcome to fact-check me on all
| these; I'm happy to learn more.
| [deleted]
| gruez wrote:
| >You most definitely do "own" the funds you've earned even if
| your employer has not yet paid them out to you.
|
| You don't. You own a IOU until it hits your bank account. The
| difference is subtle, but you can see it manifest during
| bankruptcy. Employee salaries are pretty high on the list in
| terms of "which creditors get paid first", but AFAIK they're
| subordinate to secured debt. That means it's definitely
| possible for you to lose the money you "owned", which does
| not fit with the common definition of "own". For one, you
| don't have exclusive control of it.
| SerLava wrote:
| They already own that money according to the employment
| contract, and it's stolen 2 weeks later
|
| Besides, theft is used as a specific name of a set of crimes,
| but it also has a generalized definition that means unjust
| taking, which contains fraud and other forms of theft
| sdenton4 wrote:
| If it so the work and you don't pay me, you've stolen my time.
| It's absolutely theft.
| burntoutfire wrote:
| And if you make me love you and don't love me back, you've
| stolen my heart... The OP was specifically asking about
| precise definitions, not metaphors like "stolen time".
| nwiswell wrote:
| And if you loaf around at work and still punch the timecard,
| should they haul you off to prison for that too?
| aqme28 wrote:
| What would you call "theft of services"? "Service fraud"
| instead?
|
| Theft is a more consistent term for this than you're giving
| credit.
| dataflow wrote:
| Good question. How about "unpaid labor"? Not as attention-
| grabbing as if you have "theft" in there, but it sure sounds
| more accurate than any other phrasing I can think of. Or
| maybe "wage fraud"?
| epistasis wrote:
| I don't see how anything could ever be theft with this
| definition of theft...
| dataflow wrote:
| Really? I can think of lots of things. If someone took your
| money from your wallet, that would be theft. If they refused
| to give it to you in the first place, that's not theft. It's
| pretty simple?
| SerLava wrote:
| The employers stole the labor
| anewhnaccount2 wrote:
| Maybe they took the money as a loan, intending to pay it
| back one day?
| dataflow wrote:
| Sure, and they can provide evidence of that to a jury and
| the jury can decide if they're convinced of that. Just
| like they would in any other crime. I don't see the
| problem.
| rland wrote:
| A paycheck is not a credit card payment. The value is on the
| books as soon as the work is completed.
|
| If you don't intend to pay debt when you acquire it, that is
| fraud. But your equivalence ignores the counterparty: a worker
| is not loaning out their time to a company contingent on a loan
| agreement, they are making value as soon as the work is made, a
| fraction of which they own at that point. The terms are legally
| very different; one is a credit agreement and the other is a
| wage, because the counterparties are different.
|
| In an ideal world, the wage agreement is far stricter than the
| credit agreement -- hence, it is called "theft" when it is
| violated. Unfortunately, as stated in the article, we do not
| live in an ideal world.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| It's a term of art. In practice, I don't believe failure to pay
| a debt is ever prosecuted as theft, but it's not economically
| distinguishable from it even if a legal distinction is made.
| This is effectively the basis of accrual accounting whereby
| firms claim payments as an inflow on their income statements
| when a good or service is delivered, not when payment is
| received.
|
| Possibly worth noting if you reversed something like the
| McDonald's example, going into a restaurant and agreeing to pay
| for a burger, they give you a burger, and you don't pay, I'm
| pretty sure that would be prosecuted as theft. The terms of
| exchange don't specify payment in future installments with
| interest. Labor seemingly works the same way. Batching payments
| in biweekly installments is for convenience because it would be
| impractical to disburse funds continuously, not because you're
| loaning your labor. If you want to say they're not stealing
| money, fine, but they're stealing work. I guess the law doesn't
| seem to see it this way, though.
| rdtwo wrote:
| It's more like you order a meal and you never get the fries.
| Did they steal from you or defraud you or was it a mistake.
| Hence why it's so hard to catch
| caconym_ wrote:
| > It's a term of art.
|
| This is the right answer. We aren't in danger of eroding the
| semantic foundations of law by using "theft" instead of
| "fraud", because "wage theft" is a term with a specific
| definition.
| 11thEarlOfMar wrote:
| Shooting from the hip...
|
| Perhaps we require CPAs to certify that their clients are not
| engaged in wage theft? Small businesses that do their own taxes
| may have an incrementally greater chance of being audited. Then,
| IRS audits should also look for wage theft.
| gruez wrote:
| >Perhaps we require CPAs to certify that their clients are not
| engaged in wage theft
|
| How is the CPA supposed to know that? Now you need auditors/PIs
| staking out the break room (or wherever the timecards are
| stored) to make sure workers aren't misreporting their working
| hours.
| aqme28 wrote:
| This is the article that spawned this famous and shocking wage
| theft vs other theft infographic:
|
| https://www.tcworkerscenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/W...
| toss1 wrote:
| This seems ripe for an automated legal claim filing system, like
| one I read about for parking citations or spam callers. A huge
| part of the problem is the cost & time of filing relative to
| 'small' amounts.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-04 23:01 UTC)