Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions a Year (2014)

epi.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 126 posts

Re: An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions a Year (2014)

#61

Post by tedunangst »

jseliger wrote: post #56
iso1210 wrote: post #2

"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.

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 mu…

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.

Re: An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions a Year (2014)

#62

Post by gruez »

11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #43

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.

>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.

Re: An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions a Year (2014)

#64

Post by gruez »

xyzzyz wrote: post #35
detaro wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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".

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…

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.

Re: An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions a Year (2014)

#65

Post by dataflow »

Grimm1 wrote: post #36
dataflow wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

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.

> 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.

Re: An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions a Year (2014)

#66

Post by ineptech »

iso1210 wrote: post #2

"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.

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.

Re: An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions a Year (2014)

#67

Post by specialist »

lostlogin wrote: post #53
specialist wrote: post #42

Why are people criticizing Freedom Labors™? If those workers are in any way unhappy, they should just find another job. It's a simple application of Freedom Markets™ principles to labor relations.

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?

Sorry, no, I'm being too clever by half. "Freedom Markets™" is how I mock the cult of the free market. Ditto Freedom Speeches™, Freedom Labors™, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries

Re: An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions a Year (2014)

#68

Post by fisherjeff »

CheezeIt wrote: post #51

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.

Not a lawyer but I would not advise writing “we will disregard federal labor law” into an employment agreement

Re: An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions a Year (2014)

#69

Post by gruez »

elliekelly wrote: post #19
dataflow wrote: post #6

> 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, bu…

> 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.

>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.

Re: An Epidemic of Wage Theft Is Costing Workers Hundreds of Millions a Year (2014)

#70

Post by Grimm1 »

dataflow wrote: post #65
Grimm1 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 th…

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.

Post reply on HN